Jennifer F. Briscoe

The accused, Jeremy Menary, brought a motion to sever three criminal charges on an indictment: possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (Count 2), possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (Count 1), and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (Count 3).

Menary sought a jury trial only on the fentanyl charge, intending to not contest the cocaine and firearm charges by filing an agreed statement of facts to preserve his right to appeal a prior Charter application ruling.

The court granted the severance, finding that the prejudice to the accused outweighed the public interest in a single trial, particularly given the accused's desire to testify on one count but not others, and the simplification of the jury trial on the contested count.

The court ordered that the findings of guilt on the uncontested counts would be entered before the jury trial on the fentanyl charge commenced.

The defendant, Seebastien Hariraj, brought a motion to exclude evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant, arguing the warrant was facially deficient and lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The defence sought to cross-examine the affiant regarding misleading information in the Information to Obtain (ITO), specifically an inaccurate criminal record attributed to the defendant.

The court allowed cross-examination on the criminal record issue, finding it was misleading, but dismissed the broader challenge to the warrant's validity.

The court found that, even after excising the erroneous criminal record information, sufficient reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrant.

Applying the s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the court concluded that the police conduct was not egregious and that the highly relevant and reliable evidence should not be excluded, as its exclusion would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system.

The Applicant, Parteek Ghuman, faced charges of possession of fentanyl for trafficking and obstruction of justice.

He brought a Charter application (voir dire) to exclude evidence obtained during a warrantless vehicle search and alleged violations of his s. 8 (unreasonable search/seizure) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The court found that the police officer lacked reasonable grounds for the search under the Cannabis Control Act, using it as a pretext for a criminal investigation.

The officer also failed to promptly inform Ghuman of his right to counsel upon detention and delayed implementing that right after arrest.

Concluding that the cumulative breaches were serious and impacted Ghuman's Charter interests significantly, the court excluded the evidence (fentanyl, cash, digital scale, cell phones, and false name) under s. 24(2) of the Charter, leading to Ghuman's acquittal.