Kim Schofield

The accused, Duy Tam Nguyen, was charged with multiple drug and firearm offences following his arrest with a co-accused.

Police found methamphetamine, cash, and keys to a rooming house unit on Nguyen.

A subsequent search of the unit revealed more methamphetamine, cocaine, firearms, drug trafficking paraphernalia, and Nguyen's identification documents.

The primary issues at trial were whether circumstantial evidence proved Nguyen's possession of the drugs and firearms and if the cash was proceeds of crime.

A secondary issue was the admissibility and weight of the co-accused's exculpatory statements.

The court found Nguyen guilty of possession of methamphetamine for trafficking (on person and in unit), possession of non-restricted and restricted firearms, and possession of cocaine for trafficking.

He was found not guilty of possession of proceeds of crime due to insufficient evidence.

Terrell Burke-Whittaker pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm after discharging it towards a busy highway during a funeral viewing.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the discharge of the firearm in a public place, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's sincere remorse, positive rehabilitation efforts while on bail (starting a business, acceptance into fire academy), and strong community support.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation in firearms cases, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the normal penitentiary range.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by three years of probation, along with a DNA order and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

Police executed a search warrant using a "hard entry" at the defendant's home, seizing cocaine, phenacetin, and cash.

The defendant applied to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure due to hard entry) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found a serious s. 8 breach due to the officer's lack of understanding of the knock-and-announce rule and arbitrary decision-making.

The s. 10(b) breach was not found.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court excluded the evidence, leading to the defendant's acquittal on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The applicant was arrested for drug trafficking, and a subsequent search of his residence yielded a firearm.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights due to a delay in facilitating contact with counsel and a failure to inform him of the firearms charges.

The court found that the police breached both s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) of the Charter.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breaches had a minimal impact on the applicant's Charter-protected interests and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits strongly favoured inclusion.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences following a shootout between individuals associated with two vehicles on a residential street.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, a single particle of gunshot residue (GSR) on the accused's jacket, and his possession of a key fob for one of the vehicles.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's identity as the shooter due to discrepancies in clothing, the presence of a possible third person, and the unreliability of the GSR evidence.

The court also found insufficient evidence to prove the accused had knowledge of the drugs concealed in a backpack in the vehicle's trunk.

The accused was acquitted of all charges except for one count of simple possession of cocaine, which he conceded.

The accused, Ruxsan Arulrajah, was charged with robbery.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of an inculpatory utterance made by the accused to police.

The court found the utterance inadmissible on two grounds: it was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, and it was obtained in violation of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel) due to both informational and implementational breaches.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

As the Crown chose to call no further evidence after the ruling, the charge was dismissed, resulting in an acquittal for the accused.

The applicant was charged with drug offences following a police search of an alleged commercial cannabis dispensary.

The police executed the search warrant using a dynamic, no-knock entry without justification.

Following the seizure of significant quantities of cannabis and cash, the police failed to file a Report to a Justice for over 17 months.

Additionally, the police failed to reiterate the applicant's right to counsel when she was faced with an additional, more serious charge.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the applicant's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the police misconduct warranted the exclusion of all seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was arrested at an airport after a search of his suitcase revealed over a kilogram of cocaine.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of his s. 10(b) right to counsel due to a failure to hold off questioning and a 7-hour delay in facilitating contact with duty counsel.

The court found that the police breached s. 10(b) by asking a question before counsel was contacted and by the unexplained delay.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the drugs and other evidence under s. 24(2), finding the evidence was reliable, independently discoverable, and its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused, a young Black man, was stopped by police while driving and subsequently subjected to a pat-down search, arrest, and strip search, leading to the discovery of a loaded handgun and drugs.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging racial profiling and arbitrary detention.

The court found that the traffic stop was a pretext for a drug investigation and that racial profiling played a significant role in the suspect selection, rendering the detention and subsequent searches unlawful.

Finding multiple breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 15 of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

Prior to sentencing, the court found two Charter violations regarding a wiretap intercept of a solicitor-client call and a breach of the right to counsel upon arrest, but dismissed a challenge to a strip search.

At sentencing, the court weighed the serious aggravating factors of the offences against exceptional mitigating factors, including the accused's complete reformation while on bail, his successful music career, his community service mentoring at-risk youth, and the Charter breaches.

The court concluded that a conditional sentence of two years less a day was appropriate to address denunciation and deterrence while supporting the accused's rehabilitation.

The accused brothers were involved in an altercation at a McDonald's where one displayed a firearm.

They fled and were subsequently arrested by police near an alleyway where two loaded handguns were found under a parked van.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 7, 9, and 10, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of the firearms.

The court found a breach of s. 9 for failing to bring the accused before a justice within 24 hours, and a breach of one accused's s. 10(b) rights due to delays in contacting his counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant test, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and refused a stay of proceedings.

On the merits, one accused was acquitted of assault due to self-defence, and the other was acquitted of pointing a firearm.

Both were found guilty of careless storage and possession of the firearms based on circumstantial evidence, with one also convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.

The accused, Jun Peng Wu, pleaded guilty to possession of 60 kilograms of MDMA for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The drugs and pill presses were inherited from his late father and had been stored in his residence for nine years, with the accused having a general, but unacted upon, intention to sell them.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to five years' imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court, considering the unique circumstances of passive possession, the accused's belief in the drugs' diminished potency, his first offender status, and significant rehabilitation efforts, imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The sentence included strict community conditions, a 10-year and lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order, finding that denunciation and deterrence could be achieved without incarceration given the specific facts.

The accused called 911 after finding his girlfriend unconscious from a drug overdose.

After paramedics took her to the hospital, police remained in the apartment, detained the accused without advising him of his rights, and conducted a warrantless search, discovering firearms and drugs.

The court found multiple egregious Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), failure to provide right to counsel (s. 10), and unlawful search and seizure (s. 8).

The subsequent search warrant was quashed as it relied on tainted evidence.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the firearms and drugs due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and its impact on the accused's rights.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendant, Seebastien Hariraj, brought a motion to exclude evidence seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant, arguing the warrant was facially deficient and lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The defence sought to cross-examine the affiant regarding misleading information in the Information to Obtain (ITO), specifically an inaccurate criminal record attributed to the defendant.

The court allowed cross-examination on the criminal record issue, finding it was misleading, but dismissed the broader challenge to the warrant's validity.

The court found that, even after excising the erroneous criminal record information, sufficient reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrant.

Applying the s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the court concluded that the police conduct was not egregious and that the highly relevant and reliable evidence should not be excluded, as its exclusion would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system.

The applicant, Dontay Williams, brought Charter applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence.

He alleged unlawful detention and arrest without reasonable grounds, insufficient grounds for a search warrant, an unreasonable strip search, and unreasonable delay in accessing counsel.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest, the search warrant was valid despite a technical error in its execution timeframe, the strip search was justified and conducted reasonably, and the delay in accessing counsel was reasonable given the circumstances.

The defendant, Faisal Fareed, brought an application to exclude a loaded handgun from evidence, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found that while the initial detention and seizure of the gun were lawful, there were breaches related to the delay in informing Fareed of the grounds for detention (s. 10(a)), and significant delays in implementing his right to counsel of choice (s. 10(b)).

Additionally, the police failed to file a report to a justice of the peace regarding the seized items, constituting a breach of section 8.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, particularly as the breaches occurred after the lawful seizure and did not impact the reliability of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, Andrew Rocha, sought a stay of proceedings for charges of possession of cocaine for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, alleging police stole money and drugs during a search warrant execution, violating his s. 7 Charter rights.

The court found approximately $6000 of seized cash was missing and inferred it was taken by police officers involved in the investigation.

This misconduct was deemed an abuse of state power and a breach of s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given the egregious nature of the police misconduct and the lack of an adequate alternative remedy, the court granted a stay of proceedings to dissociate the justice system from the impugned conduct, despite the strong societal interest in a trial on the merits.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging that police unlawfully intercepted calls between him and his lawyers during a wiretap investigation, violating section 8 of the Charter.

The court found that while two of the three impugned calls did not violate the authorization's minimization terms, one call to the applicant's lawyer was unlawfully intercepted.

However, the court declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the wiretap evidence under sections 24(1) or 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was isolated and did not impact trial fairness.

Instead, the court ordered a mandatory injunction requiring the police to implement new protocols for blocking lawyers' phone numbers upon a target's arrest.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police found 200 grams of cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia in a safe in his bedroom.

The offender was a 24-year-old first-time offender who had complied with bail conditions and made significant rehabilitative efforts, including completing his electrician apprenticeship.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, finding that exceptional mitigating circumstances warranted a sentence outside the usual range, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged search warrants, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing cross-examination of the affiant and that there were insufficient grounds for the warrants.

The sentence appeal argued the trial judge erred in treating the duration of activities as an aggravating factor.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in refusing cross-examination or in the warrant's issuance.

It allowed the sentence appeal, converting the nine-month custodial term to a conditional sentence order due to the trial judge's error and mitigating factors.