Javier Arvizu

The accused Moore and Abbott were charged with trafficking in fentanyl.

Moore was additionally charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

Both brought pre-trial Charter motions alleging violations of their rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The Crown sought to establish the voluntariness of utterances made by both accused.

The court found that the arrests of both accused were lawful based on reasonable and probable grounds.

However, the court found a violation of Moore's rights under s. 10(b) when police failed to follow up after his request for counsel could not be connected.

The court applied the s. 24(2) test and admitted the evidence, finding that exclusion was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused, Mr. Wu, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence in his second trial for drug trafficking and possession of crime proceeds, alleging violations of his right to counsel under s. 10(b).

The Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach but argued for the admission of evidence.

The court found multiple and serious s. 10(b) violations, including an 11-hour delay in providing access to counsel, unrecorded interviews conducted during the suspension of rights, and misleading testimony by the investigating officer at the first trial.

Applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) analysis, the court concluded that the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the accused's Charter interests significantly outweighed society's interest in an adjudication on the merits.

Consequently, all evidence seized during the related investigation was excluded.