Jim Marshall

The appellant, a criminal defence lawyer, was convicted of smuggling drugs into the Toronto Jail for a former client during a professional visit.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence and erred in refusing to order the production of third party records relating to the prevalence of drug smuggling at the jail.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge subjected the appellant's evidence to a stricter level of scrutiny than the Crown's evidence, and erred in concluding that the third party records were not likely relevant.

A new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals for possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The trial judge had excluded evidence of drugs and cash found in the accused's condominium unit under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police violated the accused's s. 8 rights by surreptitiously entering the common areas of the building without a warrant to gather information for a search warrant.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of his small condominium building and that the trial judge did not err in excluding the evidence.