Cannabis Control Act

The decision addresses three main issues: (1) the application to re-open the trial to reconsider the s. 24(2) Charter analysis in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. McGowan-Morris, (2) the application for a stay of proceedings due to delay in conducting the accused’s bail hearing, and (3) the appropriate sentence for the accused, Ivor Shawn Young, following his conviction for unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of cocaine.

The court found a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter rights but concluded that exclusion of the evidence was not warranted.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, and a sentence of three years’ imprisonment (less credit for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit) was imposed.

This decision addresses the application to exclude evidence seized during a warrantless search conducted under s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act (CCA).

The police officer stopped the accused for a traffic violation and observed a cannabis vape pen in the vehicle, which he believed constituted reasonable grounds to conduct a search.

The Court found that the vape pen is paraphernalia and not cannabis itself, and that the officer lacked objectively reasonable grounds to conduct the search without further investigation.

The Court also found a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right due to delay in informing him of his right to counsel.

Balancing the factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the Court excluded the evidence due to serious Charter breaches despite the good faith of the officer.

The court considered whether the defence could cross-examine Constable Ali Sabeeh on prior negative judicial findings made against him in an unrelated case (R. v. Uniat) to challenge his credibility and establish a pattern of Charter breaches.

The court reviewed the legal framework for admitting such evidence, including the need for a high degree of similarity and a proper evidentiary foundation.

Ultimately, the court found that the prior findings in Uniat were of marginal relevance and that their prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The application to cross-examine on those findings was dismissed, but the defence was permitted to explore the officer’s training on Charter issues.

The court granted the Charter application of Malamin Marong, excluding evidence of a loaded prohibited firearm and cocaine found during a vehicle search.

The court found that the police lacked grounds for the initial traffic stop and subsequent search under the Cannabis Control Act, and that the officer's evidence was unreliable and contradicted by other evidence.

The breaches of Charter sections 8 and 9 were serious, and the exclusion of the evidence was necessary to maintain the integrity of the justice system, despite the reliability and importance of the evidence to the Crown's case.

The applicant, Matthew Pinkney, sought to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his vehicle following a Highway Traffic Act stop, arguing that his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter were infringed.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable grounds to search under the Cannabis Control Act, based on the smell of fresh cannabis and the observation of cannabis shake.

The court held that the delay in informing Mr. Pinkney of the true reason for his detention was justified by officer safety concerns.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the powers of police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle and its occupants under s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017.

The respondent, a passenger, was acquitted at trial after the judge found his Charter rights under ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) were infringed and excluded evidence of firearms found in the vehicle.

On appeal, the Court found the trial judge erred in concluding that the respondent’s rights under ss. 9 and 10(a) were violated, but agreed that s. 10(b) was breached.

The Court held that s. 12(3) of the CCA does not justify a general suspension of the right to counsel under s. 10(b), distinguishing the context from roadside sobriety stops.

The evidence was ultimately admitted, and a new trial was ordered.

The defendant, Anushan Uthayakumar, faced charges including careless storage of a firearm and possession of a loaded restricted firearm after a traffic stop and subsequent discovery of a weapon.

The defence sought to exclude the firearm, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, specifically arguing racial profiling in the selection of the surveillance location, a pretextual traffic stop, and an unlawful search of the vehicle.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding no evidence of racial profiling, that the traffic stop was a legitimate sobriety check, and that the cannabis discovery leading to the search was lawful.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty on all counts.

This case involved a criminal trial and Charter application where the accused, Omar Houssein-Hassan, challenged police conduct during an investigation into drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found that police breached the accused's Charter rights under section 8 (unreasonable search) and section 10(b) (right to counsel).

Specifically, the search of a hidden compartment in the vehicle exceeded the permissible scope under the Cannabis Control Act, and there was an unjustified delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel upon arrest.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court excluded the illegally obtained drug evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

As the Crown could not prove the possession of illegal drugs without the excluded evidence, both charges against the accused were dismissed.

The accused, Deandre Davis, was charged with multiple counts of possessing controlled substances (cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, benzodiazepine) for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing property obtained by crime.

A co-accused, Hannah Jardine, had charges stayed.

Davis brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 24(2) alleging unreasonable search and seizure of the vehicle he was operating.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the warrantless search of the vehicle, including its trunk, justified under the Liquor Licence and Control Act and the Cannabis Control Act due to the discovery of an open beer can and cannabis roach.

The Crown's case relied on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including the large quantities of drugs, their packaging, the presence of cutting agents, a significant amount of cash found on Davis and in the vehicle, multiple cell phones, and text messages indicating drug trafficking activities.

The defence argued that another individual, Dale Morris, had exclusive possession of the vehicle prior to the arrest and could have been responsible for the drugs.

The court rejected the defence's explanation, finding Ms. Morris's testimony lacked credibility regarding her efforts to inform police about her uncle.

Applying principles of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt, the court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and concluded that Davis possessed and controlled the drugs and cash for the purpose of trafficking.

Davis was found guilty on all counts.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence (two firearms) found during a vehicle stop and search.

They alleged racial profiling, lack of grounds for the Cannabis Control Act (CCA) search, and violations of their s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found no racial profiling and determined that the strong smell of fresh marijuana provided valid grounds for the CCA search.

While s. 10(a) rights were not breached, the court found a serious violation of the accused's s. 10(b) rights due to "lackadaisical" police conduct at the station, resulting in significant delays in facilitating access to counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the long-term repute of the justice system would be better served by admitting the evidence, given its reliability, the minimal impact of the breach on the accused (who eventually spoke to counsel), and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious charges on their merits.

The application for exclusion of evidence was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of firearm charges and appealed, arguing that his initial arrest for breach of an undertaking was unlawful, leading to an illegal search and discovery of the firearm, thus violating his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the initial arrest due to their failure to check an available database (Versadex) for consent to communicate, constituting a s. 9 Charter breach.

However, the Court also determined that the police had independent lawful grounds to search the vehicle under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, based on observations of marijuana possession.

Applying a fresh s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the Court concluded that despite the s. 9 breach, the firearm evidence should not be excluded, as the impact on the appellant's Charter rights was minimal (due to the lawful CCA search) and society's interest in adjudicating serious charges on their merits strongly favored admission.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, Gabriel Bogdanov, faced charges of possessing crack cocaine and powder cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 (unreasonable search), s. 9 (arbitrary detention), and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The court found that the police search of his vehicle, purportedly based on the smell of cannabis, was unlawful due to contradictory and illogical police testimony regarding the odour and the presence of cannabis residue.

The detention and subsequent arrest were deemed arbitrary, and there was a significant delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel.

Applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis, the court determined that the police conduct constituted a flagrant disregard of Charter rights.

Consequently, all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches was excluded, leading to the dismissal of all charges against the accused.

This criminal trial concerned two defendants, Osman Aim and Ramone Thomas, charged with firearm offences after two handguns were found in a vehicle during a traffic stop.

The driver fled and was not apprehended.

The central issue was whether the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that either defendant had knowledge and control (constructive possession) of the firearms.

The court found that while the Crown's inferences were reasonable, they were not the only reasonable inferences, particularly considering alternative explanations for the movement of one firearm and the flight of one defendant, including the context of anti-Black racism in policing.

Both defendants were found not guilty on all counts.

The applicant challenged the police stop and subsequent search of his SUV on Charter grounds (sections 8 and 9), arguing arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.

A loaded handgun and fentanyl were found.

The applicant alleged police officers falsified notes and testimony regarding the reason for the stop (burnt-out headlight vs. prior BOLO) and the observation of cannabis in plain view.

The court found the police evidence untrustworthy, concluding the stop was based on stale BOLO information, not a burnt-out headlight, and the cannabis observations were inconsistent and unreliable.

The court found breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under section 24(2), emphasizing the seriousness of wilful Charter violations and testimonial dishonesty.

The court also commented on the police's failure to record interactions when attempting to enlist the applicant as a confidential informant, recommending a procedure for such records.

Chadwick Francis was stopped at a RIDE spot-check where police detected a strong odour of cannabis.

After producing an opened cannabis packet, a subsequent search of his vehicle revealed a loaded handgun.

Francis challenged the lawfulness of the search and his detention, alleging racial profiling and violations of his Charter rights (sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b)).

The court found that the cannabis was not lawfully packaged for transport under the Cannabis Control Act, justifying the search.

It also determined that there was no racial profiling and that the delay in providing counsel rights was reasonable.

Francis was found guilty of four firearms-related offences.

The Applicant, Parteek Ghuman, faced charges of possession of fentanyl for trafficking and obstruction of justice.

He brought a Charter application (voir dire) to exclude evidence obtained during a warrantless vehicle search and alleged violations of his s. 8 (unreasonable search/seizure) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The court found that the police officer lacked reasonable grounds for the search under the Cannabis Control Act, using it as a pretext for a criminal investigation.

The officer also failed to promptly inform Ghuman of his right to counsel upon detention and delayed implementing that right after arrest.

Concluding that the cumulative breaches were serious and impacted Ghuman's Charter interests significantly, the court excluded the evidence (fentanyl, cash, digital scale, cell phones, and false name) under s. 24(2) of the Charter, leading to Ghuman's acquittal.

The Defence brought an application seeking a declaration that s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, which permits warrantless searches of vehicles and occupants for unlawfully stored cannabis, violates ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it is unreasonable and overbroad.

The Crown contended the provision is constitutional, citing public safety and the regulatory nature of the Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 12(3) does not infringe either section of the Charter, is reasonable, and is justified by its regulatory purpose and the exigencies of vehicle searches.

Ryan Burke appealed his conviction for transporting cannabis in a motor vehicle contrary to s. 12(1) of the Cannabis Control Act.

The appeal raised four grounds related to the statutory interpretation of "baggage" and "fastened closed" under s. 12(2)(b) of the Act.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation, did not err in defining "baggage" to exclude small pill bottles or the vehicle's center console, and was not required to make findings on whether the containers were "fastened closed" once they were determined not to be "baggage."

This sentencing decision addresses Vernon Hill's guilty pleas to multiple driving offences, including impaired driving and driving while disqualified, along with breaches of bail conditions, committed over several dates.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the accused's extensive criminal record involving similar conduct, and significant Gladue factors stemming from intergenerational trauma and addiction.

Despite the tragic personal circumstances and the absence of an accident with injury, the court emphasized specific deterrence and public safety, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the accused's persistent disregard for court orders and public safety.

The judge imposed a total sentence of nineteen months' imprisonment, followed by three years of probation and a fifteen-year driving prohibition.

The defendants, brothers Garret and Garnett Grant, were arrested following a traffic stop that escalated into a search for cannabis and then a firearm.

They faced charges related to unauthorized firearm possession and possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

Both defendants brought Charter applications alleging arbitrary detention, unreasonable searches, and breaches of their right to counsel, including racial profiling.

The court dismissed the Charter applications for arbitrary detention and unreasonable search, finding the police conduct lawful and not racially motivated.

However, it found a breach of the right to be informed of the reason for detention (s. 10(a)) due to delayed notification of drug charges.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court admitted the evidence.

On the merits, Garret Grant was found guilty of all firearm charges, while Garnett Grant was found guilty of most drug trafficking charges and simple possession of oxycodone.

Garret Grant was acquitted of all drug charges, and Garnett Grant was acquitted of one drug trafficking count.