Joe Chapman

The accused was charged with multiple drug and weapons offences following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

Police located four individuals in the home, along with significant quantities of narcotics, drug paraphernalia, cash, and firearms.

The court applied the principles of constructive possession to determine whether the accused had knowledge and control of the seized items.

The accused was found guilty of possessing the items located in his personal bedroom, including a rifle under the bed, but was acquitted of possessing items found in common areas or in the immediate vicinity of other occupants.

The accused, Falcon Beauchamp, brought a Charter application under s. 8 to exclude an imitation firearm and narcotics found in his vehicle after a traffic stop and search.

The search was conducted under s. 32(5) of the Liquor Licence Act based on an observed open beer can.

The court found the search unlawful due to a lack of objective reasonable grounds.

However, applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the breach was low, the impact on the accused's Charter rights was moderate, and society's interest in adjudicating serious drug and gun offences was high.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of recognizance.

The applicant argued that his new ability to secure GPS electronic monitoring constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that electronic monitoring does not address the tertiary ground for detention and merely monitors rather than prevents non-compliance, thus failing to meet the test for a material change in circumstances under R. v. St. Cloud.