J. Kaldas

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after returning to Canada from Jamaica with four tins containing the drug.

The accused admitted to importing the tins but claimed she did not know they contained cocaine, believing she was transporting non-drug items for a friend.

The defence sought to introduce expert psychological evidence regarding the accused's intellectual capacity to support her lack of knowledge, which the court ruled inadmissible as unnecessary for assessing credibility.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's testimony raised a reasonable doubt about her knowledge of the drugs.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder for killing his mother.

The jury rejected his claim that he was not criminally responsible (NCR) but recommended no increase in parole ineligibility.

The court found that the offender's mental illness played a central causal role in the murder, substantially diminishing his moral blameworthiness and reducing the importance of deterrence and denunciation.

The court set the period of parole ineligibility at the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The accused applied for a mistrial during his second-degree murder trial following a violent outburst in the courtroom while the Crown was delivering its closing address to the jury.

The accused yelled profanities, damaged the prisoner's box, and had to be removed by security.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding that the outburst was likely a manifestation of mental illness rather than a calculated attempt to derail the trial, but that it did not cause irreparable prejudice.

The court relied on the strong presumption of jury integrity and concluded that the incident did not meet the high standard required for a mistrial.

The applicant brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence, arguing violations of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The police obtained a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant, which the applicant challenged through a 'step six' Garofoli application.

The court found the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds, as the informant's tip was minimally compelling and uncorroborated, and failed to establish currency for the presence of drugs.

Additionally, the police violated the applicant's s. 10(b) rights by delaying his access to counsel and failing to hold off questioning.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded the Charter breaches were serious and had a significant impact on the applicant's privacy and right to counsel.

Consequently, the firearms and drugs seized, along with the applicant's statements, were excluded from evidence.