Kelly Reitsma

The applicants, charged with firearms and drug offences, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

They argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe the firearm would be located at the specified addresses.

The court found the ITO lacked any case-specific evidence linking the firearm to the residences, rendering the search a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the serious state conduct of searching a private residence based on mere speculation outweighed the societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The applicants, who were in pretrial detention, brought an application for a stay of proceedings or damages, alleging that COVID-19 restrictions at the detention centre violated their rights.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules.

The court found that the restrictions were reasonable and necessary responses to the pandemic, comparable to restrictions faced by the general public.

Concluding there was no reasonable prospect of success, the court summarily dismissed the application.

The accused brought an application to adjourn his joint jury trial for drug importation, scheduled to commence in less than three weeks, in order to retain counsel of choice.

The accused had previously discharged counsel and had been warned multiple times that the trial would proceed with or without counsel.

The court dismissed the adjournment application, finding that the accused had not acted diligently or in a bona fide manner to retain available counsel, and that the application was a deliberate attempt to manipulate the system to achieve a de facto severance from his co-accused.

Miles Kempffer-Hossack pleaded guilty to multiple counts of firearms transfer, possession of firearms without a licence, and possession of Schedule I drugs for the purpose of trafficking, arising from an Ottawa Police investigation (Project Sabotage) into gun violence.

The court considered aggravating factors including the quantity and prohibited nature of the weapons, the presence of a booby-trapped window and explosive devices, and the dangerous combination of drugs and guns.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of prior criminal record, guilty plea, and demonstrated efforts towards rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a 10-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 9 years, less pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders for DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The court acquitted Ms. Boudreau of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime charges due to insufficient evidence proving her knowledge, consent, or control over the seized items.

Despite some personal documents and clothing belonging to Ms. Boudreau being found at the residence, the Crown failed to establish her presence at the residence on the date of the search or her continuous residency during the period the drugs and money were present.

Surveillance evidence did not identify her, and there was no fingerprint evidence.

The court found only impermissible speculative inferences to connect her to the seized items, thus failing to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, a pharmacist, pleaded guilty to making a false or misleading statement under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after dispensing morphine to an undercover officer without a prescription.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the defence sought a discharge.

The court found that the defendant's actions were motivated by a misguided desire to help someone he perceived to be in withdrawal, rather than for financial gain.

Considering the defendant's good character, lack of criminal record, and the potential professional repercussions of a conviction, the court granted an absolute discharge.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at their residence, alleging the warrant was invalid and the search violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They argued the information to obtain relied excessively on confidential informants whose reliability and motivations were insufficiently disclosed, and that the information failed to establish reasonable grounds linking the residence to drug trafficking.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the Garofoli standard and held that the issuing justice had a sufficient evidentiary basis to authorize the warrant.

Surveillance evidence, corroborated informant information, and covert entries into a related suspect’s residence collectively established reasonable and probable grounds.

The applications to exclude the seized evidence were therefore dismissed.