Kristan Jazvac

The accused, Yonathan Debessay, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking crack cocaine, fentanyl, and crystal methamphetamine, and possession of the proceeds of crime over $5,000.

These charges stemmed from drugs found in a stolen car he was driving, with two other occupants, one of whom fled the scene.

Debessay testified, denying knowledge of the drugs and claiming he was temporarily driving the car for an intoxicated acquaintance.

The court found that while aspects of his testimony were implausible, it could not be entirely discounted.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Debessay had knowledge or control of the drugs, or was involved in a joint venture.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences.

He admitted to trafficking cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime, and cocaine for trafficking.

The contested charges were possession of a firearm and possession of fentanyl for trafficking.

The court found the defendant guilty of the firearm charges, rejecting his explanation that the firearm belonged to another individual, Bogdan, due to inconsistencies in his testimony and strong circumstantial evidence (defendant's bank card and personal ornaments found with the firearm).

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the fentanyl charge, finding reasonable doubt due to weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence regarding the location and association of the fentanyl with the defendant's documents, despite the defendant's impaired credibility.

The applicant, Sayzer Sherif, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (cocaine and currency) seized during a traffic stop and subsequent arrest.

The applicant alleged breaches of sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, including failure to promptly inform of reasons for detention/arrest, delayed access to counsel, questioning after invoking right to counsel, dissuading from counsel before a strip search, and muting of body-worn cameras.

The court found breaches of sections 10(a) and 10(b) regarding delayed information, delayed access to counsel, improper questioning, and dissuasion from counsel before a strip search.

However, the court found no breach of section 7 regarding the muted body-worn cameras.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the breaches were not serious enough, and their impact on the applicant's Charter interests was limited, thus the admission of the reliable evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.