Kim Schofield

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of information to obtain (ITO) documents for tracking, general, and search warrants, arguing the search was unreasonable and evidence should be excluded.

The court granted leave for cross-examination on six specific areas concerning potential misstatements, omissions, or exaggerations in the ITOs, finding a reasonable likelihood that such cross-examination would assist in determining the grounds for warrant issuance.

Leave was denied for other areas deemed facial challenges or not likely to assist.

The issue of cross-examination regarding a confidential informant was deferred pending a judicial summary.

The defendant pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offence involved the cultivation of medical marijuana on a property without valid licenses under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation rather than the Crown's requested four-year jail sentence.

The court also dismissed the Crown's application for forfeiture of the real property, finding that such forfeiture would be disproportionate under section 19.1(3) of the CDSA.

The three accused were charged with importing cocaine after returning from a vacation in Jamaica.

Border Services Officers found approximately half a kilo of cocaine hidden inside cocoa powder cans in each of their checked suitcases.

The accused immediately disavowed knowledge of the drugs, claiming they were planted by unknown persons.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that 'Occam's Razor' proved guilt and found that the accused's immediate disavowals and testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding their knowledge of the drugs.

All three accused were found not guilty.

The offender, a pharmacist, was convicted of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl.

She participated in a scheme with a doctor and another individual to divert thousands of fentanyl patches using false prescriptions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe breach of trust and the devastating impact of fentanyl.

Despite the offender's rare medical condition and lack of a criminal record, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana (approximately 2.4 kilograms), simple possession of Psilocybin (60 grams), and simple possession of cocaine (approximately 3.4 grams).

The Crown sought a fine of $5,000 with no probation, while the defence sought a discharge with probation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months probation and 50 hours of community service, finding the accused to be an exceptional candidate for rehabilitation despite the commercial nature of the marijuana trafficking.

The court considered the accused's youth, guilty plea, genuine remorse, substance abuse issues, and significant post-charge rehabilitation efforts.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order on charges including possession of a loaded firearm and drug trafficking, after breaching his initial bail conditions.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan involving his parents as sureties and GPS monitoring.

However, conducting a de novo review, the court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the secondary and tertiary grounds due to the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences involving a loaded firearm and fentanyl, and concerns about the proposed sureties' ability to supervise him.

The accused was charged with possession of MDA and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and unlawful production after police found a drug laboratory in the basement of his leased residence.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the search warrants, which was dismissed as the court found sufficient grounds based on intercepted communications linking him to a drug distribution network.

At trial, the accused denied knowledge of the drugs, claiming he rented the basement to a third party.

The court rejected his testimony as implausible and found that the Crown proved constructive possession and production beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Inderdip Sahota, brought an application for a stay of proceedings or exclusion of drug and proceeds of crime evidence, alleging breaches of Charter sections 7, 8, and 10(b) and abuse of process by police during an investigation and search.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, finding insufficient evidence to meet the "clearest of cases" standard.

The court also dismissed the application for exclusion of evidence related to the search of the condo unit and pat-down, finding no sufficient causal, temporal, or contextual connection to the trafficked drugs.

However, the court found a breach of the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) due to a six-hour delay in facilitating access to a lawyer.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that admitting the evidence, despite the s. 10(b) breach, would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence and the lack of bad faith by police.

The drugs, proceeds, and cell phones were ordered admitted for trial.

The accused, W.M., was convicted of sexual interference involving a 12-year-old victim, J.D., whom he forcibly masturbated while in a position of trust.

The Crown sought a 2-year jail sentence, emphasizing the profound impact on the victim.

The defence proposed 9-12 months or 90 days intermittent, arguing for credit for stringent bail conditions and that the victim's impact was inherent in the sentencing range.

The court found the assault to be very serious and invasive, rejecting the defence's argument that the victim's impact was already accounted for.

While acknowledging prior rulings on the unconstitutionality of the mandatory minimum of 1 year for sexual interference, the court still considered Parliament's view.

The court sentenced W.M. to 18 months in custody, followed by 3 years of probation, a DNA order, 15-year Sex Offender Information Registration, and various prohibitions, noting that without credit for stringent bail, the sentence would have been 2 years.

The applicant, Ramy Musa, sought a de novo bail review after being detained on the tertiary ground for serious drug trafficking and firearms offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including a revised, highly stringent release plan and a re-evaluation of the carfentanil's street value, which permitted a de novo hearing.

However, after considering the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the extreme seriousness of the offences (possession of multiple loaded unauthorized firearms and trafficking lethal carfentanil), the circumstances of the commission, and the potential for a lengthy penitentiary term, the court concluded that releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Despite a strong proposed bail plan and lack of criminal record, the application for judicial interim release was dismissed, and the detention order maintained.

Criminal trial concerning an alleged fentanyl diversion scheme involving a pharmacy, false prescriptions, and a physician supplying prescriptions for illicit distribution.

The court found the evidence, particularly text messages and prescription backdating, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one accused knowingly participated in trafficking fentanyl and possessing it for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected that accused's innocent explanations for the communications and dispensing practices.

As to the co-accused, the court held the evidence directly admissible against him was too ambiguous to safely satisfy the Carter co-conspirator framework and declined to rely on hearsay communications of the co-actors to convict.

One accused was convicted on both counts and the other acquitted on both counts.

Three appellants challenged mandatory minimum sentencing provisions for unauthorized production of marijuana under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act as violating s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (cruel and unusual punishment).

The Court of Appeal found that certain mandatory minimum provisions were grossly disproportionate when applied to reasonably foreseeable circumstances, including cases involving minimal involvement, mistaken licensees, and situations lacking culpability regarding statutory aggravating factors.

The court struck down provisions imposing two and three-year mandatory minimums for production of more than 500 plants and the statutory aggravating factor provision.

The court reduced one appellant's sentence and dismissed appeals in the other cases.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80) and driving without a valid license.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, arguing his s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated.

The court found the defendant explicitly waived his right to counsel on multiple occasions despite police efforts to facilitate contact with duty counsel.

The defendant's statements were found to be voluntary.

On the trial proper, the court found the defendant was driving within two hours of the first breath test, satisfying the statutory requirement for the presumption of identity.

The defendant was convicted on both charges.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 169 pounds of marijuana in a van that fled a roadblock and crashed.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove the accused was the driver and that he had possession of the drugs.

The court held that the combination of the officer’s brief observation of the driver, the accused’s wallet containing extensive identification documents, and a prescription inhaler bearing his name established identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected arguments that the officer’s viewing of a single health card photograph fatally tainted the identification evidence.

Given the accused’s role as driver, the large quantity of marijuana, the smell of the substance, and the flight from police, the court inferred knowledge and control over the drugs.

The appellant appealed her conviction from the Superior Court of Justice, arguing that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to make more detailed inquiries into the appellant's mental status while she was testifying.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the trial judge had made sufficient inquiries, the appellant had confirmed she was able to continue and had no difficulty with her memory, and defence counsel did not pursue the issue at trial.

No fresh evidence was produced to support the appellant's claim that her mental status would have interfered with her ability to testify.

The accused, Lowell Somerville, applied for a stay of proceedings under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter, alleging abuse of process.

The application stemmed from police misconduct during the execution of a search warrant at his storage unit, where an officer stole a valuable Tony Montana statue and subsequently fabricated evidence.

The court found that four police officers lied under oath to conceal the theft and their knowledge of it.

The court concluded that this egregious state conduct, including theft and perjury, profoundly undermined the integrity of the justice system, warranting a stay of proceedings despite the serious drug charges faced by the accused.

The applicant sought a bail review based on a claimed material change in circumstances, proposing new sureties and electronic monitoring.

The applicant faces serious firearms trafficking and drug charges, with trials scheduled imminently.

The court found the proposed supervision plan inadequate, noting the reluctance of a former surety and the new surety's reservations about bail conditions.

The court concluded that detention was necessary on both secondary (protection of the public due to substantial likelihood of committing further offences) and tertiary (maintain confidence in the administration of justice) grounds, considering the gravity of the offences, the apparent strength of the Crown's case, and the potential for a lengthy term of imprisonment.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The accused, O.K., was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, S.H., testified that the sexual contact (oral sex and vaginal penetration) occurred without her consent while she was heavily intoxicated.

The accused claimed consensual activity and honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The court disbelieved the accused's testimony, finding his claims of consent and lack of awareness of intoxication to be untrue and lacking an air of reality.

The court accepted the complainant's account, finding her memory issues due to intoxication did not undermine her credibility regarding the assault itself.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs on February 3, 2012.

The Crown relied on evidence from a standardized field sobriety test (SFST), a drug recognition evaluation (DRE), and urine analysis showing multiple substances.

The defence challenged the validity of the DRE demand and alleged Charter violations under sections 8, 9, and 10(a).

The court found the DRE demand was unlawful due to insufficient reasonable grounds, constituting a breach of section 8.

The court also found violations of section 10(a) as the accused was not informed of the reasons for detention.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence obtained from the DRE and urine sample.

On the merits, the court found the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence and dismissed the charge.

The accused was arrested during an undercover 'buy and bust' drug operation after driving the target of the investigation to a pre-arranged drug transaction.

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence (cocaine and cash) seized during a search incident to arrest, arguing his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights were violated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for trafficking based on his act of transporting the target and the drugs to the transaction.

The court also found no breach of the right to counsel.