Jason Mitschele

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences after police executed search warrants at two apartments and arrested him.

The Crown conceded that the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to adequately connect information from a confidential source to the accused, meaning the warrants were issued without reasonable and probable grounds in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court found that the unlawful arrest also resulted in arbitrary detention and an unlawful strip search.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the police conduct in seeking a warrant without grounds was a serious breach that significantly impacted the accused's privacy interests.

Following the exclusion of evidence, the Crown offered no evidence and the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and possessing a loaded firearm after police stopped the rental vehicle in which he was a passenger.

The officers claimed they stopped the vehicle to check licensing and insurance under the Highway Traffic Act.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention based on racial profiling.

The court found that the officers concocted a reason to approach the vehicle and that the decision to detain was informed by the race of the occupants.

The court concluded that the stop was an unlawful pretext and a serious violation of section 9 of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) and the accused was acquitted.

The appellant was convicted of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after police found drugs in the trunk of a vehicle he had rented and was driving.

On appeal, he argued the verdict was unreasonable because the evidence was circumstantial and did not conclusively tie him to the drugs, and that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the absence of evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's control over the rental vehicle and the location of the drugs supported a reasonable inference of constructive possession.

The Court also held that the jury charge, read as a whole, adequately instructed the jury on reasonable doubt and circumstantial evidence.

The accused was arrested at a condominium unit during the execution of a search warrant for stolen property.

Police found fentanyl, heroin, carfentanil, a handgun, and ammunition in the unit.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary arrest, denial of right to counsel, and unreasonable strip search.

The court found breaches of ss. 9, 10(b), and 8 of the Charter, but declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

At trial, the court found the accused guilty of possessing the drugs for the purpose of trafficking based on constructive possession, but acquitted him of the firearm and breach of release order charges due to reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with multiple drug trafficking and possession offences.

He pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

The remaining issue at trial was whether he possessed over 300 grams of fentanyl found in a backpack in an apartment for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's access to the apartment, his drug dealing activities with an undercover officer, and the presence of his identification in the backpack.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and found that the only reasonable inference was that he had knowledge and control of the fentanyl.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The applicant, a young Black man, was stopped for a traffic infraction which evolved into a search under the Cannabis Control Act after the officer smelled burnt cannabis and saw a lighter.

A loaded handgun and drugs were found.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights, including allegations of racial profiling and police theft of his property.

The court found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, or 10(a).

The court found minor breaches of s. 10(b) due to a 15-minute delay in providing rights to counsel, post-arrest questioning, and steering the applicant to duty counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The accused was charged with possession of over 2 kilograms of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after calling 911 to report a drug overdose.

Police entered the accused's apartment without a warrant under exigent circumstances to search for other potential overdose victims and discovered the fentanyl in plain view.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights, including allegations of unlawful detention, unlawful search, and police theft of cash.

The court found technical breaches of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) or stay the proceedings under s. 24(1).

At trial, the court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found him guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused, Talicia Bryan, faced multiple charges related to the possession of drugs, a loaded firearm, and explosive materials found during a police search of an apartment.

The Crown argued that the accused was in constructive or joint possession of the items, pointing to her occupancy of the apartment and the high value of the drugs.

The defence argued that the items belonged to an associate of the accused whose fingerprint was found on the firearm and who also had access to the residence.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the illicit items, resulting in her acquittal on all counts.

The accused brought a Charter motion seeking to exclude evidence of drugs, a firearm, explosives, and her utterances, alleging violations of her ss. 8, 9, and 10 rights.

Police had entered her apartment without a warrant following a 911 call about a violent assault, finding drugs and a firearm in plain view.

The accused was later located at another address, detained, and questioned without being advised of her right to counsel.

The court found that while the initial entry and a subsequent strip search were lawful, police violated s. 8 by remaining in the apartment pending a search warrant, and seriously violated ss. 10(a) and (b) by failing to provide rights to counsel.

Applying s. 24(2), the court excluded the accused's utterances but admitted the real evidence seized from the apartment.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The accused argued there was no evidence he caused his suitcase to clear customs or intended to import the drugs, as he was merely transiting through Canada to London.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the actus reus of importing commences when drugs cross the border into Canada, and the mens rea requires only an intention to bring the drugs into Canadian territory, not an intention to clear customs.

The court concluded there was sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to find the accused guilty.

The accused, John, David, and Jonathan Pham, brought a Charter application under section 11(b) for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was nearly 28 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The Crown argued that the delay was due to an "exceptional circumstance" related to their post-ruling investigation into surveillance evidence.

The court found that the Crown's decision to investigate and introduce new evidence after a section 8 ruling (which found police misrepresentations) was not a reasonably unforeseen or unavoidable event, as the issues were central to the litigation from the outset.

Therefore, the delay was not attributable to an exceptional circumstance, and the presumptive ceiling for delay was exceeded without justification.

The Crown applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the accused on charges of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was a passenger in a vehicle where a bag containing two kilograms of methamphetamine was found.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing competing inferences rather than drawing the inference most favourable to the Crown regarding joint possession, and by failing to consider the whole of the circumstantial evidence.

The application was granted, the discharge quashed, and mandamus issued directing committal for trial.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the issuance of a tracking warrant, alleging violations of their s.8 rights due to misrepresentations and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The application also included a s.7 claim for a stay of proceedings due to lost evidence (CCTV footage).

The court found that the affiant made significant misrepresentations and omissions regarding a confidential human source's criminal record and surveillance observations, particularly concerning a trip to Whole Foods characterized as "counter-surveillance" driving and an alleged "drug transaction." These misrepresentations were found to be intentional or reckless, tainting the reliability of the ITO.

Consequently, the court excised the misleading portions, rendering the warrant invalid.

The s.7 application for a stay was not granted, as the s.8 remedy was deemed sufficient at this stage.

The defendant, John Cochrane, was charged with one count of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The prosecution's case was primarily circumstantial, focusing on whether Cochrane possessed the heroin (either solely or jointly) and if the purpose of possession was trafficking.

The court applied legal principles regarding the presumption of innocence, burden of proof, proof of possession (including constructive and joint possession), and the assessment of circumstantial evidence.

The court found that while Cochrane had legal control over the apartment where the drugs were found, the evidence did not rule out the reasonable possibility that a co-occupant, Ms. Petersen, was in sole possession of the heroin.

As the prosecution failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant was found not guilty.

The accused, Evans Okwara, was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and unlawfully importing heroin into Canada.

The Crown presented evidence including cell phone records showing knowledge of the shipment details and searches related to the delivery address, as well as a storage locker access card found in the accused's wallet, which contained additional heroin.

The accused's testimony denying knowledge and involvement was found to be inconsistent with the evidence.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework and found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed and imported heroin for trafficking.

Siavash Norouzian was charged with heroin trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an undercover officer, Detective Constable Gazey, and Sergeant Sutton.

However, forensic phone data contradicted Detective Constable Gazey's sworn evidence regarding phone calls, voice identification, and text messages, leading the court to find him not credible and unreliable.

Sergeant Sutton's evidence was also deemed unreliable due to lost notes and delayed report writing.

The court emphasized the importance of reliable forensic evidence in challenging police testimony and the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given the significant credibility and reliability issues with the key Crown witnesses, Mr. Norouzian was acquitted of all charges.

The applicant sought exclusion of drugs and currency seized following his arrest for breaching bail and drug trafficking offences, alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court held the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for bail non-compliance, and that the subsequent search of the person and vehicle was lawful, including as a search incident to arrest.

The court further held that the delay in access to counsel was reasonable in the circumstances, but found a breach where police elicited statements without cautioning the detainee about the right to silence before counsel access.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breach was of moderate seriousness with limited prejudicial impact, and that exclusion of the drugs and proceeds would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the seriousness of the offences.

The evidence was admitted for trial.

Chukwuemeka Madumelu was sentenced for multiple counts of importing heroin into Canada and one count of possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking (Toronto charges), and an additional count of importing heroin while on bail (Brampton charge).

The court found the accused was more than a mere courier, actively involved in logistical arrangements for large-scale heroin importation.

Aggravating factors included the quantity and purity of heroin, the sophistication of the scheme, and re-offending while on bail.

Mitigating factors included community support, a dated criminal record, and an early guilty plea for the Brampton charge.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 19 years, while the defence sought 12 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, applying the totality principle to ensure proportionality, and granted 465 days of credit for pre-trial detention and stringent house arrest bail conditions.

A 10-year weapons prohibition order was also issued, but a DNA order was declined.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a sentence of 26 months imprisonment, less four months credit for pre-trial custody, plus two years' probation for possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant argued the sentence was excessive given the small quantity of drugs, his addiction status, and rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's addiction and rehabilitation attempts, but reasonably concluded that exceptional circumstances did not exist.

The court noted the appellant had failed to complete a residential treatment program, continued using opiates, committed further offences while on bail, and failed to appear for sentencing.

The accused, Carlos Silva, brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence obtained through search warrants and an arrest, alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown brought a cross-application to admit certain police notes and reports as hearsay evidence.

The court dismissed the accused's application to exclude evidence, finding the search warrants and arrest lawful, and that no Charter rights were violated.

The court partially granted the Crown's application, admitting property reports and an exhibit list, but excluding an officer's notes due to reliability concerns stemming from the officer's fentanyl overdose death shortly after the seizure.