Jennifer Campitelli

The Crown applied for an order permitting three designated undercover officers to testify remotely while wearing partial face masks during a preliminary hearing.

The Crown argued this was necessary due to the security risk posed by the ease of digital image capture in Zoom hearings, which could compromise the officers' anonymity and future undercover work in investigations involving criminal organizations.

Two defendants opposed, arguing existing protections were sufficient and that masks could hinder credibility assessment.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding the identified security risk was real and that the proposed measure balanced witness safety with the defendants' rights, noting that facial demeanor is of little value in preliminary hearings and that in-person witnesses during the pandemic often wear masks.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought an application for the disclosure of police disciplinary records relating to two officers involved in the investigation.

The court held that the disciplinary file of an officer who would not be called as a Crown witness was not first party disclosure and did not meet the 'likely relevant' threshold for third party records.

For the undercover officer who would testify, the court ordered the police to ascertain whether specific additional disciplinary records existed, but otherwise dismissed the application.

On a pre-trial Charter application in a multi-accused organized crime prosecution, the applicants sought to prevent disclosure of residential address information in the common disclosure brief.

The court held that immediate disclosure of one applicant’s home address engaged and would arbitrarily infringe his s. 7 rights because there was credible evidence of a prior attempt on his life, disclosure would materially increase the danger to him and his family, and the record did not establish any real present need for co-accused to know the precise address to make full answer and defence.

The court rejected arguments grounded in Stinchcombe, parity among accused, and avoidance of future disclosure litigation.

Relief was denied respecting the father’s address because the evidence did not establish danger to him or a sufficient causal connection.

The Crown was directed to work with defence counsel on redactions, and interim sealing orders were granted.

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.

During a preliminary hearing, the court determined the voluntariness of two statements made by the defendant to police.

The first statement involved providing name and address during a search warrant execution.

The second statement was a videotaped interview at the police station following arrest and exercise of rights to counsel.

The defendant alleged she was distraught, lacked an operating mind, and was induced by promises that she could go home and rejoin her children if she provided information about drugs and a gun.

The court found both statements were made voluntarily and with an operating mind, rejecting the defendant's credibility and accepting the officer's evidence that no inducements were offered.

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 defendant was charged with importing opium, possession for the purpose of trafficking in opium, and conspiracy to commit both offences.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in trial.

The total delay from arrest to scheduled trial was 20.5 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling established in R v Jordan.

The court found no defence delay attributable to the defendant and rejected the Crown's arguments regarding exceptional circumstances and transitional exceptions.

The court concluded that the delay, particularly the Crown's failure to prioritize the case and complete disclosure in a timely manner, constituted a breach of the defendant's right to trial within a reasonable time.

The proceedings were stayed.

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.

The Crown appealed the 18-month sentences imposed on the respondents for money laundering offences.

The Court of Appeal found that while the sentencing judge erred by criticizing the police sting aspect of the case, this error did not detract from his careful review of the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly unfit and dismissed the appeal.