J. Brienza

Following a criminal trial in which the accused was convicted of one count of money laundering and acquitted of other fraud-related charges, the accused brought a motion prior to sentencing seeking to reopen the defence case and introduce additional medical evidence.

The proposed evidence concerned alleged cognitive effects of the medication Tramacet in combination with an ADHD diagnosis, which the accused argued may have affected his judgment at the time of the offences.

Applying the test for reopening a case after adjudication from Kowall and subsequent appellate authorities, the court held that the evidence could have been adduced at trial with reasonable diligence and that the accused’s assertions about medication side effects lacked credibility in light of contemporaneous medical records.

The court also found the application was effectively an attempt to reverse a tactical defence decision made at trial.

The motion to reopen the trial and admit fresh evidence was dismissed.

The accused was found in possession of a loaded handgun and marijuana while a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police.

He conceded the essential elements of the offences but sought exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) arising from an arbitrary vehicle stop and unlawful search.

The court assessed conflicting evidence from the accused and several police officers regarding the circumstances of the stop, including driving behaviour and the detection of marijuana odour.

The judge accepted the officers’ evidence that the vehicle was being driven in a careless or erratic manner contrary to the Highway Traffic Act, justifying the investigative stop.

The subsequent arrest and searches were also justified after officers detected the smell of marijuana.

Even if Charter breaches had occurred, the evidence would not have been excluded under the Grant framework.