Lalitha Ramachandran

The accused were charged with multiple counts of importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine into Canada from Trinidad and Grenada.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of couriers, fingerprint evidence on the seized suitcases, and circumstantial evidence including travel records and items seized from Guthrie's home.

The court found the couriers' testimony to be unreliable and fraught with inconsistencies.

The court also found the fingerprint and circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the loss of police search videos and photos.

Both accused were found not guilty on all counts.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain a search warrant for his residence in a drug importation case.

The applicant argued there was no reasonable basis to believe evidence would be found at his residence and sought to cross-examine on surveillance, misrepresentations, lack of connection to the residence, and travel patterns.

Applying the Garofoli test, the court found the applicant established a reasonable likelihood that limited cross-examination would elicit testimony of probative value.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on specific, restricted areas identified by the applicant.

The applicant sought to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence seized from his residence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading information and material non-disclosure.

The Crown alleged the applicant was the primary overseer for three shipments of cocaine intercepted at Pearson International Airport.

The reviewing judge applied the Garofoli standard, excising erroneous information and assessing the totality of the remaining evidence.

The court concluded that despite some omissions, the issuing justice could have found reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

During a trial for importing cocaine, the Crown sought to introduce expert evidence from a detective regarding drug paraphernalia and cash seized from the accused's residence.

The defence objected, arguing the evidence was irrelevant and constituted prejudicial bad character evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice ruled the evidence admissible, finding that tools of the drug trade are logically relevant to the charge of importing large quantities of cocaine, as importers typically do so for distribution.

The court concluded the evidence was highly probative and its admission would not lead to improper propensity reasoning.

The Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert in fingerprint and palm print analysis and comparison using the ACE-V method.

The defence opposed the qualification, arguing that fingerprint analysis is not a science and that the ACE-V method is susceptible to confirmation bias and lacks fixed standards.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey frameworks for the admissibility of expert evidence.

The court found that the officer's extensive training and experience met the threshold requirements and that the evidence was sufficiently beneficial to the trial process to warrant admission, noting that defence concerns could be addressed in cross-examination.

An application for judicial review from a surrender order of the Minister of Justice dated February 17, 2017 was dismissed on consent as abandoned.