Jason Mitschele

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 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.