Joseph Chapman

The accused was stopped by police while driving on a highway.

The officer detected the smell of marijuana and air freshener, and subsequently observed marijuana shake in plain view, leading to the accused's arrest.

A search of the vehicle yielded significant quantities of marijuana, cocaine, and cash.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found a s. 10(b) violation because the officer elicited an admission from the accused before providing a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the accused's admission but admitted the physical evidence, finding the drugs and money were discoverable independent of the breach.

The applicant, charged with drug offences in two separate cases, applied for the release of seized funds to pay for his legal defence under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded he was denied legal aid, had no other means, and owned the seized funds, but argued the cases were not complex enough to warrant two lawyers at private rates.

The court found the second case, involving multiple confidential informants, was sufficiently complex to justify two lawyers (a senior and a junior) and approved the requested hourly rates of $400 and $200.

The court ordered the release of $250,000 from the seized funds to cover legal expenses for both cases.

Following guilty pleas to criminal negligence causing death and trafficking in drugs, the court conducted a Gardiner hearing to determine aggravating and mitigating factors for sentencing.

The evidence established that the accused possessed and crushed opioid capsules at a gathering, leaving the drugs accessible for others to ingest.

A guest consumed the drugs and later died from an overdose.

The court found that the accused knowingly made the drugs available and failed to prevent their consumption despite knowledge of the deceased’s substance abuse history.

These circumstances were proven beyond a reasonable doubt as aggravating factors to be considered at sentencing.