K. Schofield

The applicant was arrested for drug trafficking, and a subsequent search of his residence yielded a firearm.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights due to a delay in facilitating contact with counsel and a failure to inform him of the firearms charges.

The court found that the police breached both s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) of the Charter.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the evidence should not be excluded, as the breaches had a minimal impact on the applicant's Charter-protected interests and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits strongly favoured inclusion.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences following a shootout between individuals associated with two vehicles on a residential street.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, a single particle of gunshot residue (GSR) on the accused's jacket, and his possession of a key fob for one of the vehicles.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's identity as the shooter due to discrepancies in clothing, the presence of a possible third person, and the unreliability of the GSR evidence.

The court also found insufficient evidence to prove the accused had knowledge of the drugs concealed in a backpack in the vehicle's trunk.

The accused was acquitted of all charges except for one count of simple possession of cocaine, which he conceded.

The applicant was charged with drug offences following a police search of an alleged commercial cannabis dispensary.

The police executed the search warrant using a dynamic, no-knock entry without justification.

Following the seizure of significant quantities of cannabis and cash, the police failed to file a Report to a Justice for over 17 months.

Additionally, the police failed to reiterate the applicant's right to counsel when she was faced with an additional, more serious charge.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the applicant's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the police misconduct warranted the exclusion of all seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police found a loaded handgun in his pants during a takedown of a motor vehicle.

The accused testified that the front passenger suddenly dropped the gun onto his lap when police approached, and he instinctively shoved it down his pants in a panic.

The court accepted the accused's evidence and applied the 'hot potato' defence, finding that his brief, hasty handling of the firearm lacked the necessary control and mens rea to constitute culpable possession.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

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

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or two years.

The court found that a four-year sentence was appropriate given the significant quantities of drugs involved.

However, the court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, strict bail conditions, a s. 10(b) Charter breach regarding the right to counsel, and the harshness of serving a sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The final sentence imposed was three years in custody.

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 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.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested for failing a roadside screening device test.

A police officer found a bag containing 42.5 grams of cocaine on the ground near the passenger side of the accused's vehicle.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove possession.

The court found that the evidence, including the dampness of the bag and the fact that the area was a busy intersection, did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the only person who could have possessed the drugs.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after being observed by police carrying a garbage bag containing 8.5 kg of marihuana.

The bag had been handed to him by a known drug trafficker during police surveillance.

The accused argued he was merely assisting an acquaintance and did not know the contents of the bag.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge or intent to possess the drugs, or that he knowingly aided the trafficker.

The accused was acquitted.

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.

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 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.