K. Johnson

On a pre-trial Charter application, the moving party sought exclusion of statements and physical evidence seized from a BMW, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9 and 10(b).

The court found a psychological detention, breaches of counsel and silence rights, and an unreasonable search in the manner police compelled production of a key fob.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the moving party’s verbal and non-verbal statements, including the key-fob handover.

The court admitted the drugs, firearm, ammunition, and related physical evidence because they were independently discoverable under a valid vehicle warrant.

The application was allowed in part.

The applicant, Matthew John Blumenstock, sought to exclude evidence seized from his residence under section 8 of the Charter, arguing that the search warrant was issued without sufficient grounds linking him or the property to drug offences.

The court reviewed the investigative background, the Information to Obtain (ITO), and the legal standards for issuing a search warrant.

Justice Spencer Nicholson found that, considering the totality of the evidence—including surveillance, phone records, and the presence of suspicious cardboard boxes—there were reasonable grounds to believe that illicit cannabis would be found at the property.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown closed its case in a trial where the accused were charged with possession of various prohibited substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The accused brought motions for directed verdicts of acquittal on all counts.

The court granted the directed verdict of acquittal for the charge of possession of property obtained by crime, finding no reasonable inference could connect the seized cash to drug trafficking.

However, the court dismissed the motions for the drug trafficking charges, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of constructive possession and intent to traffic for a reasonable jury to potentially convict.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, sought to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a rural property, alleging violations of their s. 10(a) and (b) Charter rights.

The court found moderate and minor breaches of s. 10(a) and (b) due to a delay in transporting one applicant to the police detachment to contact counsel and a failure to promptly inform both applicants of additional charges.

However, the court found no breach of the duty to hold off eliciting evidence.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the breaches were not deliberate or systemic, had a minor impact on the applicants' Charter-protected interests, and society's interest favoured adjudication on the merits.

The application to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) was dismissed.

The defendants applied under s. 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of charges due to unreasonable delay, as the time from charge to the anticipated end of trial exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found no defence-caused delay and no discrete events that would justify the delay.

Furthermore, the case was not deemed particularly complex to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay.

Despite acknowledging significant judicial resource limitations, the court concluded that the 30.5-month delay was unreasonable and granted the application, staying the charges against both defendants.

The Crown sought to admit expert forensic accounting evidence from Jeffrey J. Good to establish that approximately $49,500 in seized currency was proceeds of drug trafficking.

The defendants were jointly charged with possession of various prohibited substances for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court applied the two-step admissibility test for expert evidence from *Mohan* and *White Burgess*.

While the expert was qualified, the court found the evidence lacked logical relevance to directly link the seized funds to drug trafficking over the seven-year period analyzed.

Concerns were also raised regarding the unexplained expansion of the expert's mandate from one defendant to both, and the arbitrary selection of the seven-year period.

The court concluded that the potential prejudicial effects of the evidence, including inviting speculation and devolving the case into a remote inquiry, outweighed its slight probative value.

Consequently, the expert evidence was deemed inadmissible.

At a preliminary hearing, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial on various charges related to marijuana production and trafficking conspiracies.

The court discharged two accused (Tuan Vu and Thu Tran) on conspiracy charges, finding that while they may have facilitated or furthered the commission of crimes, the evidence was insufficient to establish they were parties to the formation of the conspiracy agreement itself.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. J.F., which restricts party liability in conspiracy cases to conduct that aids or abets the formation of the agreement.

The court also discharged one accused (Cong Nguyen) on a count involving a warehouse conspiracy, finding that merely selling equipment with knowledge it would be used for illegal purposes does not constitute conspiracy.

Two accused were committed to trial on trafficking and conspiracy counts.

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 accused, charged with producing and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, applied to exclude evidence obtained from a general warrant and a subsequent CDSA warrant, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The accused argued the police lacked reasonable grounds for the general warrant and misled the issuing judge.

The court found the investigating officer had reasonable grounds based on a confidential informant's tip corroborated by hydro records and police investigation, and acted in good faith.

The court concluded there was no s. 8 Charter breach and, alternatively, that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The application was dismissed.