Undercover operation

The three accused were charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime following an RCMP undercover operation.

The Crown's case relied heavily on voice identification evidence from intercepted communications to link the accused Shanker to the conspiracy.

The court found the voice identification evidence unreliable due to cross-racial identification issues, expectation bias, and the poor quality of the recordings.

Without reliable voice identification, the circumstantial evidence of the accused's presence at the warehouse was insufficient to prove their involvement in the drug trafficking scheme beyond a reasonable doubt.

All accused were acquitted of the cocaine-related charges.

Pawar conceded guilt to a separate charge of possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was charged with possessing and transferring firearms, and possessing proceeds of crime, following an undercover police operation.

The Crown alleged the accused was the supplier of firearms sold by a co-actor to an undercover officer.

The court admitted various pieces of evidence, including cross-count similar fact evidence, adoptive admissions, and hearsay statements under the co-actors' exception.

However, applying the standard for circumstantial evidence, the court found that while the evidence was highly suspicious, it supported other reasonable inferences, such as mere association or involvement in other criminality.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The defendant was found guilty of drug trafficking and related offences based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

He subsequently brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing he was entrapped by police who offered him an opportunity to traffic fentanyl without reasonable suspicion.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the police had reasonable suspicion based on a compelling and credible tip from a confidential informant, which was further corroborated by the defendant's responses to undercover text messages.

The appellant was one of 104 individuals arrested in Project Raphael, an undercover online police investigation targeting the buyer side of the juvenile sex work market.

He responded to an ad posted by an undercover officer on Backpage.com, was told the officer was 15 years old, and was arrested upon arriving at a designated hotel room.

He was convicted by jury on three child luring-related offences and applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

Following the companion decision in R. v. Ramelson, 2022 SCC 44, the Court held that Project Raphael constituted a bona fide inquiry and dismissed the entrapment application and the appeal.

The accused was charged with several offences, including sexual assault and child luring.

During the investigation, police impersonated the 15-year-old complainant using her phone to communicate with the accused and capture his messages without a warrant.

Upon his arrest, police conducted a warrantless search of his cell phone, taking screenshots of all messages across multiple applications.

The court found that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his messages to the complainant, and that the warrantless undercover operation violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court also found the search of his phone incident to arrest was overly broad and violated s. 8.

Applying s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence obtained from the undercover operation and the search incident to arrest.

The accused, a police officer, was found guilty of multiple offences including unauthorized use of a computer, breach of trust, possessing a stolen firearm, and drug trafficking following an undercover police corruption investigation.

The accused brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings, arguing he was entrapped by undercover officers and that the investigation amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found that the accused was entrapped into committing theft and uttering forged documents relating to a fabricated confidential informant report, as the police induced the offences without reasonable suspicion, and stayed those counts.

However, the court dismissed the entrapment application for the remaining offences, finding that reasonable suspicion existed and the accused was not induced, but rather created his own opportunities to commit the crimes.

The court also declined to grant a general stay for abuse of process.

The applicant, charged under the Security of Information Act, brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from an undercover operation pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicant argued that the evidence was derived from a CSIS wiretap warrant that violated his s. 8 Charter rights due to a lack of candour by the affiant.

The court assumed a s. 8 breach had occurred but applied the Grant factors and concluded that the breach was not at the most serious end of the scale, the impact on the applicant's rights was diminished by several factors, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious national security charges on their merits was exceptionally high.

The motion to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused, a police officer, was targeted in an undercover corruption investigation.

He was charged with 14 offences arising from his interactions with an undercover officer posing as his partner and another undercover officer posing as a mid-level organized crime figure.

The court found the accused guilty of theft and uttering forged documents for keeping money intended for a fictitious confidential informant and forging the receipt.

He was also found guilty of unauthorized use of a computer and breach of trust for running licence plates for personal reasons and to assist the undercover drug dealer.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a firearm obtained by crime and possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose after he stole a police shotgun in preparation for robbing a drug warehouse.

However, he was acquitted of attempted robbery because his extensive planning had not progressed beyond mere preparation.

He was also convicted of trafficking cocaine by offer and trafficking steroids to the undercover officer.

The defendant, C.S., brought a motion to recuse the assigned Crown counsel, alleging her involvement in the drafting of a racially charged undercover advertisement used in the investigation, which formed the basis of a potential abuse of process application.

The court found that newly disclosed police notes suggested the Crown's involvement in the investigative planning, making her a material and necessary witness.

Given the unreliability of the police officer's testimony regarding the meeting, the court determined that the proper administration of justice required the Crown to be called as a witness, thus meeting the stringent preconditions for recusal.

The accused was charged with two separate first-degree murders in Toronto and Brampton.

During a pre-trial motion, the court previously ruled that the accused's confessions to undercover officers were admissible.

In this motion, the court determined how to edit the confession for the Toronto trial to prevent the jury from hearing overly prejudicial evidence about the Brampton homicide.

The court ruled that explicit references to the Brampton shooting must be edited out, but circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the car and gun used in both incidents remained admissible due to its high probative value regarding identity.

The appellant was convicted by jury of attempting to knowingly participate in or contribute to the activities of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group, and counselling an undercover police officer to do the same.

The trial judge imposed consecutive sentences of five years on each count, resulting in a total sentence of 9 years and 7.5 months with credit for presentence custody.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the conviction grounds and upholding the sentence as fit and appropriate for terrorist offences.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and importing cocaine into Canada.

A parcel containing cocaine was shipped from Trinidad to an address in Oshawa.

An undercover police officer, posing as a Canada Post employee, delivered the parcel.

The defendant intercepted the delivery, demonstrated knowledge of the sender and intended recipient, accepted the parcel, and brought it inside a residence.

Within 23 minutes, police executed a search warrant and found the parcel opened on a kitchen table.

The defendant fled upon police entry.

The court found the defendant guilty of both counts based on direct and circumstantial evidence establishing possession and knowledge of the illegal drugs.

The accused was charged with hostage taking in relation to the kidnapping of Amanda Lindhout and Nigel Brennan in Somalia.

The accused admitted to acting as the negotiator and translator for the hostage takers but raised the common law defence of duress, claiming he was forced to participate under threat of death or bodily harm.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unbelievable, relying on intercepted communications and admissions made to an undercover officer that he participated for a share of the ransom money.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting under duress, and he was found guilty as a party to the offence.

The applicant, charged with hostage taking, brought an application to exclude statements made to undercover police officers and post-arrest statements.

The police conducted a multi-year undercover operation, posing as a book publisher to lure the applicant to Canada.

The court found the operation was a variant of a 'Mr. Big' operation but did not amount to an abuse of process, and the probative value of the confessions outweighed any prejudice.

The court also dismissed arguments that the applicant's pre-arrest and post-arrest statements violated his section 7 right to silence or his section 10(b) right to counsel, finding the statements voluntary and the right to counsel adequately provided.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from his communication via text message with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl offering sexual services.

The charges were: communicating with a person believed to be under 18 to facilitate obtaining sexual services for consideration; communicating with a person believed to be under 16 to facilitate invitation to sexual touching; and communicating to obtain sexual services from a person under 18.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused believed he was communicating with a minor.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable and contradicted by the text message record.

The court concluded the accused made a detailed agreement to purchase sexual services from a person he believed was 15 years old and acted upon that agreement until arrested.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts.

The accused was charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of attempting to possess a prohibited firearm.

The court found that while the accused possessed the specific intent to kill, his actions regarding the attempted murder of the complainant's children did not progress beyond mere preparation, thus failing to establish the actus reus.

Consequently, he was found not guilty of attempted murder.

However, the court found that the accused's actions and inquiries to obtain a firearm constituted an attempt to possess a prohibited firearm, finding him guilty of that charge.

Akash Ghotra, having been found guilty of internet luring, applied to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

He argued that an undercover police officer, posing as a 14-year-old girl in an internet chatroom, provided an opportunity to commit the offence without a pre-existing reasonable suspicion or a bona fide inquiry.

The Crown contended that merely stating an age of 14 did not create an opportunity and that the officer was engaged in a bona fide inquiry in an area where such offences were likely.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer did not create an opportunity for internet luring, as the applicant initiated the conversation and directed it towards sexual matters.

Furthermore, the court held that the internet chatroom constituted an area where criminal activity was reasonably suspected, thus justifying the police operation as a bona fide inquiry and not random virtue testing.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime after selling drugs to an undercover police officer.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing entrapment.

The undercover officer had called a phone number provided by a confidential informant and, after a brief initial exchange, asked to purchase drugs.

The court found that the police were conducting a bona fide investigation and had reasonable suspicion before presenting the opportunity to commit the offence.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to trial on first degree murder for the death of Shana Carter, alleging the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused's counsel conceded sufficient evidence existed for committal on second degree murder but opposed committal on first degree.

The court found that while the evidence could support inferences of deliberation, the evidence regarding planning was more problematic.

However, applying the legal test for committal, the court determined that a jury could reasonably infer planning from the totality of the evidence, including the accused's motive (protecting his son), his animus toward the deceased, prior attempted strangulation, post-offence conduct (body disposal, cleanup, false statements), and statements to an undercover officer.

The court committed the accused to trial on first degree murder.

During a jury trial for cocaine trafficking, the Crown invoked investigation privilege to prevent disclosure of the surveillance location from which a police officer observed the accused during an undercover drug transaction.

The court reviewed the principles governing investigative technique and observation post privilege, balancing the public interest in protecting police methods and cooperating third parties against the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.

The judge permitted extensive cross‑examination regarding the officer’s ability to observe but prohibited questions that would reveal the precise surveillance location or whether the officer was inside or outside a building.

The jury was instructed that the privilege limited defence cross‑examination and that this limitation could affect the weight given to the officer’s testimony.

The jury ultimately acquitted one accused and convicted the other.