Jason Mitschele

Mid-trial, the accused, Siavash Norouzian, brought a motion to re-open the defence case to call a new expert for phone analysis and to recall Detective Gazey, a Crown witness.

This application arose after issues concerning the reliability of initial expert evidence and *Browne v. Dunn* concerns were raised by the Crown.

The court granted the defence permission to call a new expert and recall Detective Gazey, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court declined to call the expert itself or order the Crown to cover the expert's fees, instead inviting a funding application.

The accused, charged with serious firearms and drug trafficking offences, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The court found that a newly proposed supervision plan, which included house arrest, three sureties pledging significant funds, and an ankle monitor, constituted a material change in circumstances.

Balancing the tertiary ground factors, the court concluded that the strict release plan was sufficient to maintain confidence in the administration of justice and granted bail.

The accused, charged with nine drug offences, applied for a Rowbotham order after being denied legal aid funding.

The Crown conceded that the accused's right to a fair trial would be compromised without counsel but contested his indigency and whether he had exhausted all appeals.

The court found that the accused had exhausted his appeals and met the test for indigency, despite his initial failure to provide complete financial disclosure to Legal Aid Ontario.

The application was allowed, and the charges were ordered stayed unless the Crown agreed to provide funding at Legal Aid tariff rates.

Matthew Wawrykiewicz was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences across two indictments.

Following a dismissed Charter application, he did not contest the Crown's facts.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant quantities of cocaine and heroin, the commission of second offences while on bail, and the presence of weapons.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of prior criminal record, and the efficient defence of the Charter motion.

The court found him to be a high-level professional drug dealer and imposed a global sentence of ten years in the penitentiary, with specific concurrent and consecutive sentences for each count, and credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

The applicant challenged a search warrant for his home and vehicle, arguing a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds and improper use of the telewarrant procedure.

The court applied the Garofoli procedure for redacted Information to Obtain a Search Warrant (ITO) and the Debot criteria for informant tips.

The court found the informant's tip compelling and corroborated, despite some weaknesses in credibility.

It also found no material non-disclosure by the police and that the telewarrant procedure was properly used, as "impracticable" does not require urgency or impossibility.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, with the court noting that even if there was a s. 8 breach, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter following the Grant test.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 34 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

After deducting 56 days of defence delay, the net delay remained above the ceiling.

The Crown argued that the adjournment of the preliminary inquiry due to a co-accused's retainer issues constituted an exceptional circumstance.

The court rejected this argument, finding the Crown could have remedied the delay by severing the accused.

The court found a violation of s. 11(b) and stayed the charges.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence seized during a drug trafficking investigation.

Police initially entered the accused's hotel room without a warrant following noise complaints, discovering drugs in plain view.

This led to the seizure of cell phones and subsequent surveillance of an apartment building, resulting in further drug seizures.

The court found the initial hotel room entry violated section 8 of the Charter as police did not comply with the Trespass to Property Act.

However, the court found no section 8 violation regarding surveillance in the apartment building's common areas.

Applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2), finding the police acted in good faith and the societal interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits outweighed the impact of the breach.

Following jury convictions for producing methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of precursor chemicals, and arson by negligence, the court sentenced the offender for operating a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in a rented residential house over approximately 18 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and both general and specific deterrence, relying on the pernicious nature of methamphetamine, the quantity involved, the prolonged production operation, the use of a third party's property, and the substantial danger posed to a residential neighbourhood.

After concurrent count-specific sentences and credits for bail restrictions and pre-sentence custody, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

The court also granted a weapons prohibition, a DNA order, forfeiture of seized property, and restitution to the landlord for repair costs and lost rent.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of chemicals knowing they would be used to manufacture methamphetamine.

The offender was found in possession of approximately 1 kilogram of pure methamphetamine and precursors capable of producing at least 6 kilograms of methamphetamine, with an estimated street value of $700,000 to $1,050,000.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years and 6 months less credit for 5 weeks of pre-trial custody, resulting in 6 years and 4 months to be served, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and DNA order.

On a criminal trial arising from a house fire that exposed a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory, the Crown sought to adduce several utterances made by the accused to attending police officers.

The court held the utterances were voluntary under the confessions rule, rejecting arguments based on lack of caution, incomplete note-taking, oppression, and lack of operating mind.

Applying the detention analysis, the court found no breach of the informational component of s. 10(b) before the utterances were made, but found a later breach of the implementational component because police delayed access to counsel for several hours after arrest.

Applying s. 24(2), the court held the subsequent breach did not justify exclusion because the utterances predated the breach and their admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant executed at a family home where police seized over 148 grams of heroin from a basement refrigerator and bedroom.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to establish constructive possession, asserting that the accused used the basement area where the drugs were found.

The defence argued that the basement was a communal space used by multiple family members and that the Crown failed to prove the accused’s knowledge and control of the drugs.

The court found significant evidentiary gaps, including unreliable police surveillance evidence, absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the drugs, and evidence that other individuals had access to the locations where the drugs were discovered.

Applying the principles governing constructive possession and reasonable doubt, the court held that the Crown’s theory required conjecture and did not exclude other reasonable possibilities.

The accused applied under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to quash a search warrant executed at a residence where police discovered a large marijuana grow operation.

The application alleged that the affiant mischaracterized hydro‑consumption data, failed to provide full and frank disclosure in the Information to Obtain, and lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court conducted a Garofoli review and held that the ITO, even after minor excisions, contained sufficient evidence including hydro‑consumption patterns, repeated odour detections of marijuana, and surveillance observations distinguishing the target residence from neighbouring properties.

The warrant was therefore validly issued.

Alternatively, even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would have been admitted under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and central to the prosecution.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered after the trial judge quashed a CDSA search warrant and excluded drugs, firearms, and other seized evidence from an apartment searched during a nightclub drug-trafficking investigation.

The Court of Appeal held that refusal of leave to cross-examine the affiant did not bar a sub-facial challenge to the warrant, but concluded that the trial judge nevertheless exceeded the proper scope of Garofoli review by reweighing the amplified record, preferring inferences, and effectively conducting a de novo assessment.

The court reaffirmed that warrant review asks whether reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed remained on the basis of which the warrant could have issued.

The acquittals tied to the seizure at 306 Adelaide were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The applicants sought exclusion of cash and cocaine seized during execution of a search warrant, alleging breaches of s. 8 of the Charter and arguing that the warrant was invalid because the redacted Information to Obtain relied heavily on confidential informer information.

The Crown invoked the Garofoli “Step Six” procedure, providing a judicial summary of redacted material so the reviewing judge could consider the unredacted ITO while preserving informer privilege.

The court held that the Step Six procedure was appropriate because the defence was sufficiently aware of the nature of the excised material to challenge it.

After excising minor inaccuracies and amplifying certain information, the court concluded that the authorizing justice could reasonably have issued the warrant under the Debot framework based on a compelling tip and corroborative police investigation.

Even if the warrant had been invalid, the evidence would have been admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter given the absence of police misconduct and the importance of the real evidence seized.

The offender was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, assault police, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought an upper reformatory sentence of incarceration, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's difficult background, genuine remorse, and 51 months of crime-free behavior while on bail.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for certiorari to quash her committal for trial on drug trafficking charges.

The Court of Appeal upheld the reviewing judge's conclusion that circumstantial evidence, including cash, drugs, and paraphernalia found in apartments where the appellant resided, as well as drugs found in a car registered in her name, constituted sufficient evidence of knowledge and control to meet the test for committal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with importing heroin, applied to exclude intercepted telephone communications on the basis that the wiretap authorizations breached his s. 8 Charter rights.

The first authorization targeted an airport employee suspected of drug smuggling, based largely on a confidential informant's tip.

The court found the first authorization valid, applying the Debot factors.

The second authorization named the applicant as a 'known person' after his calls with the primary target were intercepted.

Relying on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Mahal, the court held that the standard for intercepting a known person's communications is whether it 'may assist the investigation', which was met here.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on drug trafficking charges, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest while executing a search warrant for firearms.

The applicant claimed repeated kicks to the head and a blow with a shotgun butt, asserting violations of ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court rejected the applicant’s account as not credible and accepted the officers’ evidence that the applicant resisted arrest in a confined space during a high-risk firearms search.

The court found that the force used to gain control of the applicant was reasonable and that the injury sustained was an unintended consequence of lawful force.

No Charter breach was established and the requested stay was denied.

The applicants, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought applications under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The police stopped the applicants' vehicle on the highway and conducted a warrantless search, discovering cocaine.

The court found the detaining officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect the applicants were involved in a drug transaction, rendering the detention arbitrary.

Furthermore, the court found the search of the vehicle occurred before the arrest, making it unreasonable.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded the police conduct was deliberate or reckless and excluded the cocaine from evidence.

The Crown appealed an 18-month conditional sentence imposed on the respondent for production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft over $5000 related to a commercial grow-op.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by conflating the forfeiture of offence-related property with general sentencing principles.

However, the majority held that a conditional sentence was still appropriate given the mitigating factors, including a guilty plea, employment, and family obligations.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court noting that the respondent had already served over eight months of the sentence.