Justice P.T. O'Marra

The accused was charged with importing cocaine into Canada on May 22, 2017, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown alleged that the accused knowingly imported 3,522 grams of liquid cocaine (85% purity) valued between $134,716 and $329,307 in a suitcase upon returning from Brazil.

The accused testified that she was unaware of the cocaine and that her boyfriend may have secretly placed it in her suitcase without her knowledge.

The court rejected the accused's credibility and found that the circumstantial evidence, including the value of the drug, the weight and condition of the suitcase, the accused's handling of the luggage, and the implausibility of the "unwilling dupe" narrative, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the cocaine.

The court convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a Probation Order (x2), failing to comply with a Release Order, failing to comply with an undertaking, failing to comply with a Weapons Prohibition Order, and uttering a death threat.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the surety, who admitted to perjury at the bail hearing and had an extensive criminal record.

The court found the surety's evidence unreliable due to his credibility issues, lack of corroborating evidence, and the substantial amount of alcohol and drugs he consumed on the evening in question.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg/100 ml) following a traffic stop for dangerous driving.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter violations including arbitrary detention, failure to provide timely rights to counsel, and failure to comply with the "forthwith" requirement for the approved screening device demand.

The court found minor breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the evidence, finding that the breaches were inadvertent, the impact on Charter-protected interests was minimal, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant sought to establish standing to challenge the admissibility of a loaded handgun, ammunition, and drugs seized from a wooden fence during execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The applicant argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fence and its contents.

The Crown contended there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a shared fence accessible from the neighbor's property.

The court found that the applicant established standing by demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fence, albeit at the lower end of the spectrum, as the fence was part of the curtilage of the residence and the items were not abandoned.

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings for violation of section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to delay.

The total delay from the laying of the information on August 28, 2018 to the scheduled end of trial on May 15, 2020 was 20 months and 17 days, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months under the Jordan framework.

The Crown argued that a 93-day delay between two judicial pre-trial dates should be characterized as a discrete event beyond its control due to technological issues from a Microsoft Office 365 software update.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the assigned Crown Attorney's failure to attend was due to forgetfulness rather than an exceptional circumstance.

The court also found significant delays in disclosure, particularly the 7.5-month delay in providing the Information to Obtain the search warrant and missing officers' notes.

The court concluded that no exceptional circumstances justified the delay and granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with robbery with a knife of an iPhone from the complainant on March 21, 2018.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification evidence, specifically the complainant's yearbook identification and claimed recognition of the accused from prior sightings at a plaza.

The accused denied involvement and testified he was in Toronto with his girlfriend at the time.

The court found multiple frailties in the identification evidence, including significant discrepancies in height estimation, inconsistencies regarding accents and facial coverings, and the unreliability of the recognition evidence based on brief, distant observations.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

Two young persons were convicted of robbery simpliciter following a trial.

They were among a group that forcefully entered a hotel room in Oakville and robbed an escort of her personal belongings.

The young persons' culpability was grounded in party liability.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to six months followed by probation, while defence counsel sought probation with conditions.

The court found the offence constituted a violent offence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act due to psychological bodily harm to the victim and the home invasion nature of the crime.

However, considering the young persons' lack of prior records, their conduct while on bail, educational achievements, supportive family circumstances, and the mitigating factor of adult influence, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of two years' probation with conditions including community service.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of his parked car in a plaza parking lot at 3:31 am.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The defence argued the presumption did not apply because the accused's body was slumped across the front seats, and alternatively, that the presumption was rebutted by evidence of a concrete plan to stay at a friend's residence.

The court found the presumption applied but was rebutted on the balance of probabilities regarding initial intent.

However, the court found the accused presented a realistic risk of danger to the public given his intoxication, possession of car keys, and lack of a reliable alternative plan.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit ("over 80").

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the breath demand and breath samples under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure.

The defendant also challenged the Crown's reliance on the presumption of accuracy under the transitional provisions of Bill C-46.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion based on the strong odour of alcohol on the defendant's breath, satisfying the threshold for an approved screening device demand.

The court rejected the Charter application and found that the Crown could rely on the presumption of accuracy, adopting the reasoning from R. v. Does and R. v. Porchetta over R. v. Flores-Vigil.

The defendant was convicted.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two accused on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court applied the test for committal in circumstantial evidence cases, examining whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably draw the necessary inferences to establish the essential elements of the offences.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the inferences required for conviction.

Specifically, the court found that a reasonable jury could not infer a hand-to-hand drug transaction occurred, could not establish that both accused occupied the residence where drugs were found, and could not infer knowledge and control over the drugs.

Both accused were discharged on all counts.