Jonathan Geiger

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after CBSA officers found the drug in food cans in his luggage.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit the accused's statements to CBSA and RCMP officers as voluntary, while the accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude the statements and drugs due to alleged arbitrary detention, an unreasonable strip search, and sleep deprivation.

The court found the statements voluntary, noting that while keeping the accused awake was minor misconduct, it did not induce the statements.

The court also dismissed the Charter application, finding no detention during routine customs questioning and no unreasonableness in the brief strip search.

A mid-trial ruling also admitted a Certificate of Analyst.

The respondent, facing a first-degree murder charge, subpoenaed a federal Crown counsel who had previously stayed a drug charge against him.

The respondent sought to question the Crown counsel about his reasons for staying the charge to support an abuse of process argument regarding the admission of disreputable conduct evidence.

The Crown counsel brought a certiorari application to quash the subpoena.

The Superior Court held that while the court clerk properly issued the subpoena based on defence counsel's representations, the subpoena must be quashed because the respondent failed to establish that the Crown counsel likely had material evidence to give, as prosecutorial discretion is presumed to be exercised properly absent evidence of bad faith.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana following a search of his vehicle.

The search was initially conducted under section 32(5) of the Ontario Liquor Licence Act after the officer observed open alcohol in the vehicle.

The officer subsequently searched the trunk and opened a shopping bag containing approximately 100 grams of marijuana.

The court found that while the initial search was lawful, the search of the shopping bag exceeded the lawful scope of the search power under the Liquor Licence Act.

Applying the three-factor test from R. v. Grant, the court excluded the evidence of the marijuana, finding that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct, the significant impact on the accused's privacy interests, and the credibility concerns regarding the officer's testimony outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.