K. Wells

The accused was charged in connection with a bank robbery where clothing discarded by the fleeing robber contained DNA matching the accused as a major contributor.

The Crown’s case relied entirely on forensic DNA evidence linking the accused to a baseball cap and sweatshirt recovered at the scene.

The court accepted that the DNA established the accused had contact with the items at some point but found it could not establish when or how the DNA was deposited.

Given the presence of multiple contributors and the inability to exclude that others wore the clothing during the robbery, the evidence did not eliminate reasonable alternative inferences.

The court held that DNA evidence alone, without additional corroborating evidence linking the accused to the offence, could not satisfy the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Four accused were charged with possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking after police intercepted shipping containers from Pakistan containing chromium ore concealing approximately 4.6 metric tons of cannabis resin.

Police removed the drugs and conducted a controlled delivery of a sample to a Toronto warehouse, where the accused were arrested after entering the premises.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance, fingerprint evidence, and the accused’s association with the shipment and each other.

The court held that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that any accused had knowledge or control of the hidden drugs.

Alternative inferences consistent with innocence remained available, including the possibility that the accused were unwitting participants in the shipment’s handling.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence arising from his arrest for cocaine trafficking and the subsequent search of a condominium unit where police seized nine kilograms of cocaine.

He alleged breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms relating to unlawful arrest, seizure of keys and a key fob, warrantless retrieval of fob access information, warrantless entry into a condominium unit, and alleged deficiencies in the Information to Obtain a search warrant.

The court held that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on surveillance of a suspected drug transaction and subsequent flight.

While the warrantless entry into the condominium unit violated s. 8 because exigent circumstances were not established, the subsequent search warrant remained valid after excision of impugned material.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the seized cocaine, finding the Charter breach modest and the evidence highly reliable and essential to the Crown’s case.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of physical evidence and statements obtained following a vehicle stop.

Police stopped the accused based on an alleged smell of marihuana and subsequently searched the vehicle, discovering a loaded handgun.

The court found the officer’s evidence regarding the odour of marihuana not credible and concluded that the detention, arrest, and search lacked lawful foundation.

Multiple breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were established, including failure to provide timely access to counsel and continued questioning after the accused requested a lawyer.

Applying the framework from Grant and related jurisprudence, the court held the breaches were serious and admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence and statements were excluded under s. 24(2).