Kim Schofield

The accused, a Black man, was stopped for a traffic violation.

During the stop, police learned he was on a release order with conditions.

A search incident to arrest led to the discovery of marijuana, which prompted a further search that revealed a loaded handgun.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging racial profiling (s. 9), unlawful search (s. 8), and breaches of his right to counsel (s. 10(b)).

The court dismissed the s. 9 and s. 8 claims but found the police breached s. 10(b) by delaying access to duty counsel and questioning him before he spoke to a lawyer.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that admitting the firearm would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the reliability of the evidence and the public interest in prosecuting gun crime.

The accused, a professional truck driver, was charged with dangerous operation causing bodily harm and death after his tractor-trailer collided with stationary vehicles at a red light, killing one person and injuring thirteen others.

The Crown relied on dashcam video showing the accused repeatedly yawning and using his cellphone in the minutes leading up to the collision.

The court found that the accused's prolonged inattention, exacerbated by fatigue and distraction, constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable professional driver.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, a youthful first offender, was convicted of possessing a loaded restricted firearm and carrying a concealed weapon.

The court considered social context evidence regarding his background as a Muslim Canadian of Afghani descent but declined to apply the Morris framework for systemic racism.

After granting credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, the court sentenced the accused to 16 months and 1 week in a provincial reformatory, rejecting a conditional sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine, trafficking fentanyl, and possessing a loaded restricted handgun.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission for a global sentence of 6.5 years, leaving the quantum of Downes credit for strict bail conditions to the court's discretion.

The court accepted the joint submission and granted 18 months of Downes credit due to the lengthy and stringent house arrest conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 4 years and 10 months imprisonment.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The respondent brought a motion to adduce new evidence, which was allowed.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal from the bench, with written reasons to follow.

The 20-year-old first-time offender pled guilty to possession of a restricted firearm and possession of 117 kg of cocaine and 3.8 kg of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court balanced the paramount sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and individual deterrence for youthful offenders against the need for denunciation and general deterrence given the enormous quantity of drugs and the presence of a loaded handgun.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, comprising 8 years for the drug offence and 2 years consecutive for the firearm offence, less credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The accused, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a Charter application challenging a production order for condominium surveillance footage.

The court found the accused had a low reasonable expectation of privacy in the controlled common areas of the building, but none in the publicly accessible areas.

The court allowed the Crown's step-six Garofoli application to rely on the unredacted ITO, finding the judicial summary provided sufficient information to challenge the authorization.

Ultimately, the court upheld the production order, concluding the issuing justice could have found reasonable and probable grounds based on the confidential informant's tips and police surveillance, and further noted that the property manager's consent provided independent lawful authority for the police access.

The defendant was charged with seven counts arising from the execution of Cannabis Act search warrants at two residential properties on November 3, 2021.

The charges included unlawful possession of cannabis for purposes of distribution and sale at both properties, and unlicensed possession of firearms and a prohibited device at the rural property.

The defendant was found present at the rural property when police executed the warrant.

The Crown relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence to establish possession.

The court found that while the Crown established the presence of substantial quantities of cannabis and firearms at both locations, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed these items.

The court acquitted on all counts, finding reasonable doubts regarding the defendant's knowledge and control over the items, the handling of evidence by police, and the possibility of indirect DNA transfer.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (682.37 grams of 98% pure cocaine) and possession of property (cash of $30,733.00) obtained by crime.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by 12 months of probation, finding that despite the serious nature of the offences and aggravating factors, the offender's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, rehabilitative efforts, difficult personal background, and positive character references warranted a community-based sentence.

The court emphasized that the offender was more than his error and that proportionality, individualization, and the unique circumstances of the case justified departure from the typical sentencing range.

The accused brought a pre-trial application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and a rural property, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was insufficient and that police subverted the authorization process by failing to disclose an industrial hemp licence.

The court found that even with notional excisions and amplifications to correct the omission of the hemp licence, the ITO contained sufficient reliable evidence of a large-scale illicit cannabis trafficking operation to justify the warrants.

The court also declined to exercise its residual discretion to set aside the warrants, finding no evidence of bad faith or deliberate deception by the police.

The application was dismissed.

The accused sought leave to cross-examine Detective Constable William Crawford, the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) affidavit used to secure search warrants under the Cannabis Act.

The accused was charged with three counts under the Cannabis Act and six counts under the Criminal Code related to unlicensed cannabis possession and firearms offences.

The court considered five proposed areas of cross-examination: hemp checks conducted, ability to differentiate cannabis from hemp plants, interpretation of monitored conversations, failure to include certain surveillance dates, and alleged failures to be full and frank in specific paragraphs of the ITO.

The court granted leave for cross-examination regarding hemp checks and the basis for belief about plant identification, but denied leave for the other three areas.

The appellant, Rapinder Bains, appealed convictions for drug-related offences, arguing that the trial judge erred by applying a less onerous standard for entrapment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding that it was open to the trial judge to infer from the Agreed Statement of Facts that the officer had the requisite subjective belief to proceed.

The appeal and the sentence appeal were both dismissed.

This decision clarifies the meaning of "export" under the Cannabis Act in the context of possession for the purpose of exporting cannabis.

The Court held that "export" means sending cannabis or industrial hemp from Canada to another country and does not require proof of commercial value or any additional purpose beyond the physical act of exportation.

The ruling emphasizes that the Act and its regulations permit exportation only for medical, scientific, or industrial hemp purposes, and that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the possession was intended to cause the cannabis to leave Canada.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The respondent had discharged the firearm during a shootout in a public parking lot.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by prioritizing rehabilitation over denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

However, the majority dismissed the appeal and declined to incarcerate the respondent, citing his significant rehabilitative progress and the time already served under the conditional sentence.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police found a large quantity of drugs, a loaded gun, and $40,000 in cash in a hidden compartment in the trunk of his car.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the hidden compartment or the contraband, suggesting that his former intimate partner or her associates planted the items to frame him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unbelievable and found that the only reasonably plausible inference on the totality of the evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

Duy Tam Nguyen was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and firearm possession offences after police found significant amounts of cocaine, methamphetamine, and two firearms in a "stash house" he operated.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record and the sophistication of the operation, and mitigating factors such as rehabilitative prospects and pre-sentence custody conditions.

The judge applied the principle of totality to determine appropriate concurrent and consecutive sentences for the various counts, ultimately imposing a total sentence of seven years and eight months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders for DNA sample and a lifetime firearm prohibition.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and crack for the purpose of trafficking, and trafficking.

The case involved a Charter application to exclude evidence (drugs and shipment receipt) due to a s. 8 Charter violation by police for failing to file a timely Report to Justice.

The court found a s. 8 violation but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the Grant factors, noting the police conduct was negligent but not serious, and the impact on the defendant was minimal.

On the merits, the court found the defendant guilty of trafficking, concluding that he was the person who dropped off the package and knew its contents, or was wilfully blind, based on circumstantial evidence including fingerprints and suspicious shipping practices.

The defendant, Thomas Nsiah, was charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court found that a strip search conducted by police at the detachment violated the defendant's section 8 Charter rights, as it was unreasonable and unauthorized, lacking proper grounds or procedure.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the drug evidence obtained from the vehicle.

In the alternative, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge and control of the concealed drugs, given the lack of forensic evidence linking him to the hidden compartment and the vehicle's non-ownership by the defendant.

The Crown alleged Christian Collins breached his Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) by committing an armed robbery shortly after the CSO was finalized.

The court found overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including DNA and the purchase of walkie-talkies used in the robbery, connecting Collins to the crime.

The court determined that Collins's previously established "complete and successful reformation" which was a premise for the CSO, was erroneous.

Given the serious nature of the breach (armed robbery) and the underlying offences (drug trafficking, firearm possession) which endangered public safety, the court concluded that the CSO was no longer appropriate.

The CSO was terminated, and Collins was committed to custody for the remainder of his sentence.

The applicant was arrested for domestic assault.

Police subsequently discovered evidence of drug trafficking, leading to a search warrant for his residence and vehicle, where drugs, cash, and a firearm were found.

The applicant brought preliminary motions alleging multiple Charter breaches, including unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) and denial of the right to counsel (s. 10(b)), seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) and to quash the search warrant.

The court found breaches of s. 8 (warrantless entry into the vehicle and residence) and s. 10(b) (delay in facilitating access to counsel).

However, the court held that the search warrant remained valid after excising unconstitutionally obtained information and that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.