Joelle Faith Klein

The Crown appealed directed verdicts of acquittal and a stay of proceedings in a multi-accused robbery trial, arguing the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence and granting a stay for lost evidence.

The respondents cross-appealed their convictions.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in excluding similar act evidence due to insufficient reasons and in granting a stay without assessing prejudice.

The Crown's appeal was granted, setting aside the acquittals and stay, and ordering a new trial on those counts.

The respondents' cross-appeals against conviction were dismissed as the similar act rulings had benefited them or were consented to, and other grounds lacked merit.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused was arrested following a police investigation into fentanyl distribution in Eastern Ontario.

Police recovered 146 fentanyl patches, 350 oxycodone tablets, approximately $30,000 in cash, and drug trafficking paraphernalia from two residences.

The court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing the dangers of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and general deterrence in response to the opioid crisis.

The applicant, facing serious charges including membership in a criminal organization and fraud, applied for a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

While the court accepted that the case was complex and the applicant had been denied Legal Aid, the application was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove indigence.

The applicant provided insufficient financial documentation and failed to account for the proceeds from the sale of a home.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking, brought a pre-trial motion (voir dire) to exclude three statements made to police (roadside, video, off-video) and evidence obtained via a search warrant, alleging violations of his Charter rights to counsel and unreasonable search and seizure, and lack of reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The Crown sought to admit the statements.

The court found the roadside statement inadmissible due to a Charter s. 10(b) violation.

However, the video and off-video statements were deemed voluntary and admissible, as the applicant had consulted duty counsel and did not diligently indicate inadequate advice or a change in circumstances to re-trigger the right to counsel of choice.

The court also found that reasonable and probable grounds for arrest existed and upheld the search warrant, despite a minor inaccuracy in the Information to Obtain, as sufficient information remained to authorize it.