Kerry Benzakein

The applicant, who was not a suspect in a drug trafficking investigation, had her apartment searched after police observed a suspect entering and leaving the building.

The police obtained a search warrant for the applicant's apartment, where they found a large quantity of drugs.

The applicant brought a motion to quash the search warrant and exclude the evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to believe the suspect had taken drugs into the applicant's apartment, rendering the search unreasonable under s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the serious breach of the applicant's privacy rights warranted the exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused, charged with 18 drug-related offences including trafficking large amounts of fentanyl, cocaine, and MDMA, brought a bail review after being detained.

He proposed a new release plan involving his aunt and uncle as sureties and GPS electronic monitoring.

The court found the accused barely met his onus on the primary and secondary grounds.

However, applying the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code, the court concluded that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the overwhelming strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences involving deadly drugs, and the likelihood of a significant penitentiary sentence.

The bail review was dismissed.

The accused were charged with possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and money laundering following the execution of search warrants at two condominiums.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession of large quantities of cocaine, marijuana, oxycodone, and psilocybin, as well as significant amounts of cash.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including keys, documents, and debt lists, overwhelmingly established that both accused were in possession of the narcotics and that the cash was derived from trafficking.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought applications to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging violations of their rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).

The police obtained search warrants for a condominium and a vehicle based on information from a confidential informant.

Prior to executing the warrants, police discovered the accused's vehicle at a different condominium, arrested him, and made a warrantless exigent entry into the unit to prevent the destruction of evidence.

The court found the initial warrants were validly issued and that the exigent entry was lawful under s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court also dismissed challenges to a strip search and an alleged delay in facilitating the right to counsel.

The applications were dismissed.

The accused, charged with trafficking in heroin and possession of the proceeds of crime, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of the trial was approximately 32 months.

The court analyzed the delay using the Morin framework and concluded that the institutional delay was 14 months and 3 days, which fell short of the 18-month guideline for Superior Court cases.

Finding that the prejudice suffered by the accused stemmed from being charged rather than the delay itself, the court dismissed the application.

The accused applied to vary his bail recognizance to permit him to resume producing medical marijuana at an industrial premises while facing charges for drug production and related offences.

He argued that his prior personal-use production licence remained valid due to the Federal Court’s interlocutory injunction in Allard v Canada preserving certain licences under the former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations.

The court held that the applicant did not meet the criteria for protection under the Allard injunction or Health Canada’s transitional administrative policy because his authorization to possess had expired before the relevant injunction date.

As a result, he could obtain medical marijuana through lawful sources but could not personally cultivate it.

The application to vary the recognizance was dismissed.

The accused applied for disclosure relating to police protocols for informants, procedures for after-hours search warrant access to judicial officers, and production of a confidential informant file.

The application was brought to support a proposed Garofoli challenge to search warrants and to explore potential abuse of process allegations including alleged judge shopping and possible police agency by the informant.

The court held that the requested materials were irrelevant to the merits of the prosecution and unsupported by any evidentiary foundation.

The court further held that confidential informant files are prima facie privileged and cannot be compelled absent the innocence-at-stake exception.

The application was characterized as a fishing expedition and dismissed.