J. Campitelli

The applicants, the driver and passenger of a motor vehicle, sought to exclude a firearm, ammunition, and drugs seized during a traffic stop, alleging violations of their ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found that the initial stop was lawful and not the result of racial profiling.

However, the court held that the search of the vehicle incident to the driver's arrest for driving under suspension violated his s. 8 rights, and a brief delay in providing his rights to counsel violated his s. 10(b) rights.

The passenger's Charter rights were not violated.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the breaches were not egregious, the impact on the driver's rights was minimal, and the evidence should be admitted.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The defence challenged the validity of a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing the police affiant included misleading statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO) by describing suspected drug exchanges as observed 'hand-to-hand transactions'.

The court found the affiant's drafting errors were due to inexperience rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

After excising the problematic statements, the court concluded the remaining information from confidential informants and police surveillance provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The Charter challenge was dismissed and the accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with importing heroin after arriving at Pearson International Airport.

Border Services Officers suspected he was inadmissible and, after conducting a targeted internet search about drug routes from Uganda, asked him if he had swallowed drugs without providing Charter cautions.

The accused admitted to swallowing drugs and subsequently expelled heroin pellets.

The court found the questioning had escalated beyond routine screening into a focused investigation, resulting in a detention that breached the accused's rights under ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with unlawfully importing cocaine into Canada after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica with cocaine dissolved in two bottles of ginger wine.

The accused claimed she was an innocent blind courier who had been set up by an acquaintance who paid for her trip.

The court rejected her exculpatory evidence as implausible, noting her financial distress, the high value of the drugs, and inconsistencies in her testimony.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and principles of circumstantial evidence, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew she was importing a prohibited substance and found her guilty.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness and admissibility of statements made by the accused to Canada Border Services Agency officers during a secondary inspection at an airport following his return from abroad.

The defence argued that the statements were obtained in breach of Charter rights and should be excluded due to delayed rights warnings and the absence of audio or video recordings.

The court found that the accused was not constitutionally detained until contraband was discovered in concealed compartments of containers in his luggage, at which point he was immediately arrested and properly cautioned.

Several incriminating statements were spontaneous utterances and others were made in response to brief investigative questions rather than interrogation.

The court held the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and that the lack of recordings did not undermine admissibility in the circumstances.

The offender was sentenced for offering a bribe to police officers contrary to s. 120(b) of the Criminal Code after attempting to avoid arrest during an unlawful police search and detention.

The offender offered approximately 100 pounds of marihuana and later added $120,000 in cash to induce the officers to release him.

The court emphasized that bribery of police officers constitutes a serious attack on the integrity of the justice system and requires strong general deterrence.

Aggravating factors included the significant value of the bribe, persistence in offering it, and its connection to serious drug trafficking.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of prior custodial sentence, apology, and the fact the attempt arose during police breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

A custodial sentence of nine months was imposed with credit and mitigation resulting in a further four months’ imprisonment.