Kandia Aird

The Attorney General of Canada applied for an arrest warrant, specifically a Feeney warrant, under the Extradition Act for a person sought in the United States for fraud.

The court noted that under section 16 of the Extradition Act and section 507(4) of the Criminal Code, the applicant must make out a case for a warrant as opposed to a summons.

Finding no evidence to suggest an arrest warrant was required for the Canadian citizen living in her own home, the court dismissed the application without prejudice.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of probation after police executed a search warrant at her apartment.

Police found 5.29 grams of cocaine on her person, 17.68 grams in a safe in her bedroom, and over $2,000 in cash.

The accused claimed the drugs on her person were for personal use and that she was unaware of the drugs in the safe, which she alleged belonged to a friend.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as implausible, finding that the quantity of drugs, cash, and digital scales were consistent with trafficking.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a telewarrant used to search his residence for controlled substances.

The defence sought disclosure relating to a confidential informant, cross‑examination of the affiant, and exclusion of evidence seized during the search.

The court reviewed both redacted and unredacted versions of the Information to Obtain and considered whether the informant’s information was credible, compelling, and corroborated.

Although the court found the informant’s credibility to be poor and criticized the incomplete disclosure of the informant’s criminal record in the ITO, the information was sufficiently detailed and corroborated by police investigation to establish reasonable grounds.

The court concluded that the telewarrant was properly issued and the seized evidence was admissible.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police stopped his vehicle for a traffic infraction and discovered heroin in the car.

The defence argued that police orchestrated the traffic stop and planted heroin on the vehicle’s console to justify a warrantless search.

The court conducted a blended voir dire addressing the admissibility of the seized drugs under s. 8 of the Charter.

After identifying serious credibility issues and collusion in police testimony, the court concluded that the heroin visible on the console was planted to create a pretext for the search.

The search was found to violate the accused’s Charter rights and the drug evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).