Kandia Ayanna Aird

The accused brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 24(2) seeking to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant for a residence and motor vehicle in a cocaine trafficking investigation.

The accused alleged misrepresentations, omissions, and insufficient grounds in the information to obtain (ITO), including issues relating to confidential informants and the accused’s connection to the searched residence.

Applying the Garofoli framework and the principles governing confidential informant information in Debot, the court reviewed the amplified record including cross-examination of the affiant.

Although certain information about the accused’s possible alternate address and “no fixed address” status had been omitted from the ITO, the court found the omissions were not made in bad faith and that sufficient grounds remained.

The court concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was trafficking cocaine and that evidence would be found at the residence and vehicle.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that a 26‑month delay from arrest to trial on a charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The delay included institutional delay in both the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice, including a nine‑month adjournment due to the unavailability of a judge.

Applying the guidelines from R. v. Morin, the court found that although the delay warranted scrutiny and some prejudice could be inferred, the accused’s evidence of actual prejudice was limited and not significant.

The court also considered that the accused’s election for a jury trial and Charter applications increased scheduling complexity and contributed to the length of the delay.

Balancing the modest prejudice against the strong public interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges on their merits, the court declined to grant a stay.

The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude drugs discovered during a search following his arrest for possession of marijuana.

Police approached a vehicle after observing the accused leave an after‑hours club and arrested him after the passenger was found with marijuana.

The court held that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused and that the arrest was based on speculation that he knew about the passenger’s marijuana.

The resulting search and detention violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, and the court rejected the Crown’s argument that the interaction constituted a lawful investigative detention.

Applying the framework in Grant, the court concluded the police conduct demonstrated a deliberate disregard for Charter rights and excluded the seized drugs.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing that his arrest was unlawful and the drugs seized should be excluded.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the initial arrest was unlawful, the police were justified in conducting an investigative detention and protective pat-down search.

This search would have inevitably led to the discovery of a digital scale and a soft bulge, which, combined with the appellant's prior record, would have provided reasonable grounds for a lawful arrest and search.

The impact on the appellant's Charter rights was minimal, and the evidence was admissible.