Kim Schofield

The accused was charged with possession of heroin and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police stopped his vehicle for a traffic infraction and discovered heroin in the car.

The defence argued that police orchestrated the traffic stop and planted heroin on the vehicle’s console to justify a warrantless search.

The court conducted a blended voir dire addressing the admissibility of the seized drugs under s. 8 of the Charter.

After identifying serious credibility issues and collusion in police testimony, the court concluded that the heroin visible on the console was planted to create a pretext for the search.

The search was found to violate the accused’s Charter rights and the drug evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

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

The court considered the appropriate sentence for a first offender engaged in street to mid-level commercial drug trafficking involving cocaine and MDMA, where the offender had made substantial rehabilitative efforts while on strict bail conditions for several years.

Applying the principles in ss. 718–718.2 and 742.1–742.7 of the Criminal Code, the court found that a sentence of less than two years was appropriate and that a conditional sentence would not endanger the community.

Significant mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, absence of prior criminal record, guilty plea, employment history, and rehabilitation from drug addiction.

A conditional sentence of two years less 18 days with strict house arrest conditions was imposed, followed by two years’ probation.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana, possession of marijuana over 3 kilograms for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of hydro under $5,000 following a police raid on a grow operation.

The defendant admitted possessing 14.9 kilograms of wet marijuana in his van but claimed it was refuse destined for disposal.

The court found the defendant not guilty of production and theft charges, but guilty of simple possession.

However, the defendant held a valid Health Canada authorization to possess up to 3,960 grams of dry marijuana for medical purposes.

Upon agreement of counsel regarding the dry weight conversion of the wet marijuana, the possession charge was dismissed as the quantity fell within the defendant's authorized limit.

Following a traffic stop, police arrested the accused on an outstanding civil bench warrant and located cocaine during a warrantless search.

The central issue on the blended voir dire was whether the Crown proved that the seizure occurred during a lawful search incident to arrest, rather than during an unauthorized inventory search of the vehicle.

The court held that contradictory police testimony and inadequate notes prevented the Crown from establishing on a balance of probabilities that the search was lawfully connected to the arrest.

A section 8 Charter breach was found, the drugs were ruled inadmissible, and the charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking following a break-in at a licensed medical marijuana grow operation.

The defendant, employed as a security monitor and cleaner, called 911 to report the break-in and cooperated fully with police.

He claimed he honestly believed the entire operation was authorized under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) based on production licenses displayed at the facility and assurances from his employer.

The Crown argued either that the defendant knew the operation exceeded authorized limits or, alternatively, that any mistaken belief was one of law rather than fact.

The court found the defendant's belief in his immunity from criminal liability was honestly held but constituted a mistake of law, as the licenses authorized only 30 plants while over 1,500 were present.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with unlawfully producing cannabis contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Following a voir dire on a Garofoli application and Charter challenge, the court admitted evidence from a search warrant executed at the accused's residence.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused exercised knowledge and control over a sophisticated marijuana grow operation discovered at the premises, based on surveillance evidence showing the accused's repeated attendance at the house, his use of a remote garage door opener to gain access, the extended periods he spent inside the house, and the sophisticated nature of the grow operation.

The court found the accused guilty.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana and related offences.

He applied under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash search warrants that led to the discovery of marijuana plants.

The defendant held a production license allowing him to produce marijuana for personal medical purposes.

Four search warrants were issued for different units in a warehouse plaza—two licensed units (17 and 18) and two unlicensed units (15 and 16).

The licensed units were authorized for a combined total of 294 plants.

The defendant challenged whether the warrants had sufficient reasonable grounds to believe there was an "overgrow" in the licensed units and whether the unlicensed units were operating as a grow operation.

The court found that after excision and amplification of the Information to Obtain, the warrants were supported by reasonable grounds and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant executed at a family home where police seized over 148 grams of heroin from a basement refrigerator and bedroom.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to establish constructive possession, asserting that the accused used the basement area where the drugs were found.

The defence argued that the basement was a communal space used by multiple family members and that the Crown failed to prove the accused’s knowledge and control of the drugs.

The court found significant evidentiary gaps, including unreliable police surveillance evidence, absence of forensic evidence linking the accused to the drugs, and evidence that other individuals had access to the locations where the drugs were discovered.

Applying the principles governing constructive possession and reasonable doubt, the court held that the Crown’s theory required conjecture and did not exclude other reasonable possibilities.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing procedural unfairness regarding a Corbett application and challenging the trial judge's decision to allow cross-examination on a prior conviction for cultivating marijuana.

The Court of Appeal found no procedural unfairness, noting the trial judge properly navigated the issues.

The Court held that the appellant's denial of expertise in operating a marijuana grow-op opened the door to cross-examination on his prior conviction, which had limited but potential value in assessing his credibility.

The trial judge's limiting instructions to the jury were accurate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with unlawfully producing cannabis contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown executed a search warrant at the accused's residence and discovered a marijuana grow operation with over 1,000 plants.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and breached his Charter section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court conducted a detailed review of the ITO, examining allegations of material omissions, misleading information, and deficiencies raised by the defence.

The court found that while the ITO contained minor omissions and could have included more detail, the affiant was not acting in bad faith and the core substance of the ITO provided sufficient grounds for the justice of the peace to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed and the evidence was admitted.

The accused applied under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to quash a search warrant executed at a residence where police discovered a large marijuana grow operation.

The application alleged that the affiant mischaracterized hydro‑consumption data, failed to provide full and frank disclosure in the Information to Obtain, and lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court conducted a Garofoli review and held that the ITO, even after minor excisions, contained sufficient evidence including hydro‑consumption patterns, repeated odour detections of marijuana, and surveillance observations distinguishing the target residence from neighbouring properties.

The warrant was therefore validly issued.

Alternatively, even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would have been admitted under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and central to the prosecution.

The accused was tried on multiple drug trafficking counts and possession of proceeds of crime after police executed a search warrant at a shared apartment and discovered drugs, cash, packaging materials, and a hidden stash of heroin in a modified Nestea container in the kitchen.

The Crown relied heavily on the testimony of a co‑accused who claimed the accused owned the heroin.

The court found the co‑accused's evidence unreliable due to inconsistent statutory declarations and a clear motive to implicate the accused to obtain favourable treatment from the Crown.

In the absence of independent confirmatory evidence connecting the accused to the heroin stash, the court held that possession was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of heroin, oxycodone, and MDMA trafficking counts but convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime based on drugs, scales, packaging materials, and cash found in his bedroom.

Accused charged with drug offences sought exclusion of evidence seized from residences pursuant to search warrants under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court conducted a Garofoli review of the Information to Obtain and found the warrants were issued without sufficient grounds.

The police had re‑submitted essentially the same ITO to a different judicial officer after a justice of the peace refused the warrant, amounting to impermissible judge‑shopping and misleading drafting.

The search warrants were therefore invalid and the searches constituted unreasonable searches contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court held the seriousness of the police misconduct and the impact on the accused’s privacy interests outweighed society’s interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The offender was convicted of robbery with violence, use of an imitation firearm, unlawful confinement, and assault with a weapon arising from a planned home invasion.

Two masked offenders entered the victim’s home with handguns, demanded drugs and money, struck the victim with a firearm, and fled with minimal property.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a weapon, planning, disguises, and the sanctity of the home, as well as the offender’s criminal record.

Mitigating factors included character references and evidence of community involvement.

Prior appellate authorities on home invasion sentencing established a general range of approximately five to thirteen years.

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of five years, including the mandatory consecutive one‑year sentence for the imitation firearm offence.

The accused sought a bail review after being ordered detained by a justice of the peace.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, citing allegations involving road rage, drug offences, and the use of a loaded firearm.

The reviewing judge accepted that a change in circumstances existed due to a revised release plan involving two new sureties pledging substantial assets and the addition of GPS electronic monitoring.

Applying the framework from R. v. Hall and subsequent appellate authorities, the court emphasized that detention under the tertiary ground must be reserved for rare cases and requires a contextual assessment of the statutory factors.

Considering the presumption of innocence, the proposed supervision plan, and the absence of specific public concern regarding the accused, the court concluded that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered after a trial judge quashed a search warrant, found a s. 8 Charter breach, excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2), and dismissed drug-production charges.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by excising or discounting too much of the information to obtain, since the remaining hydro data, physical indicators of a grow operation, and odour evidence provided sufficient grounds on which the warrant could have issued.

Although the court upheld the finding that use of the telewarrant procedure was not shown to be impracticable within s. 487.1 of the Criminal Code, it rejected the conclusion that a police supervisor had improperly interfered with the issuing justice.

Reapplying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court found the Charter breach not serious, the privacy interest diminished, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits strong.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in connection with a search warrant executed on an apartment.

The Crown conceded violations of sections 8 and 10(b).

The court found violations of all three sections.

The applicant was charged with unlawful production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for trafficking, and possession of MDMA for trafficking.

The court conducted a section 24(2) analysis and excluded evidence consisting of keys and a lease seized during the search, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings against the respondent for drug and proceeds of crime offences due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to properly analyze and allocate the periods of delay.

Upon conducting its own analysis, the Court of Appeal concluded that the total period of Crown and institutional delay was approximately 10 months, which only slightly exceeded the Morin guidelines.

Balancing this against the minimal prejudice suffered by the respondent and society's interest in a trial on the merits, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the stay, and ordered a new trial.

The accused was charged with theft of electricity, production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of marijuana.

The accused brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on all counts except simple possession.

The Crown presented evidence of a large-scale marijuana grow operation discovered at a residence owned by the accused, including sophisticated equipment, electrical bypass modifications, and chemical baths.

The Crown also presented circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the operation through documents found at both the grow operation location and the accused's residence.

The court applied the test from R. v. Arcuri, assessing whether the evidence, if believed, could reasonably support an inference of guilt.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support inferences of knowledge and control by the accused and dismissed the application for a directed verdict.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's decision to stay charges against two accused involved in a marijuana grow operation.

The trial judge stayed the charges against the first accused because a Mandarin interpreter was unavailable on the final day of trial, citing judicial independence and unreasonable delay.

The charges against the second accused were stayed based on a finding that police breached the knock-and-announce rule and section 7 of the Charter during the execution of a search warrant.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding the trial judge erred in principle and in law on both stays.

The stays were set aside and a new trial was ordered for both accused.