K. Marley

The two accused, commercial truck drivers, were charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after CBSA officers found 31 kilograms of cocaine in their trailer at the Ambassador Bridge.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove knowledge and control.

The court rejected the testimony of the accused Sidhu, finding his explanation for his fingerprint on a box containing cocaine to be illogical and implausible.

Sidhu was found guilty on both counts.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the co-accused Singh had knowledge of the cocaine, as there was no physical evidence linking him to the drugs and other reasonable inferences existed.

Singh was acquitted.

The offender was convicted of two counts of trafficking marijuana.

He was found with approximately 10 kilograms of marijuana in his vehicle and half a kilogram at his home.

The court considered his prior record for the same offence and that he was on probation at the time.

Mitigating factors included his genuine remorse, his bipolar disorder diagnosis, and the stringent bail conditions he endured.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 months in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, charged with sexual offences and child pornography, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained from his cell phone.

Police attended the home of the accused's mother without a warrant, informed her the phone contained child pornography, and demanded she hand it over, creating exigent circumstances.

The court found the warrantless seizure violated section 8 of the Charter because the police instigated the exigent circumstances instead of pursuing prior judicial authorization.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2), finding the evidence was highly reliable, pre-existed the investigation, and its exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

During a drug raid, the accused was arrested and given his right to counsel multiple times.

He initially nodded his head indicating a desire to speak to counsel, but later told the booking officer 'not really' when asked if he wished to contact a lawyer now.

He subsequently made spontaneous statements to an investigating officer before being cautioned again.

The Crown applied to admit the statements as voluntary, while the defence applied to exclude them under ss. 7, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the statements were voluntary.

The court also found a technical breach of s. 10(b) because the police failed to clarify the accused's change of mind regarding counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), concluding the breach was minor and the accused clearly understood his rights but chose not to exercise them.