Lance Beechner

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit murder, brought an application to exclude evidence seized during multiple warrantless searches.

The court found the warrantless entry at 10 York Street was justified by exigent circumstances to prevent a planned shooting.

The warrantless entry at 88 Harbour Street and the seizure of a vehicle breached section 8 of the Charter, but the evidence was admitted under section 24(2).

However, the search of a bedroom at 15 Danum Road involved egregious Charter breaches, including a violation of the right to counsel and an invalid consent, leading the court to exclude the drugs and cash found there.

During his criminal trial for a firearms offence, the accused refused to answer a question during cross-examination about the identity of a person who gave him a satchel, citing fears for his safety.

The Crown brought a motion to hold him in contempt of court.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to seriously interfere with the administration of justice.

The court also noted that the accused should have been afforded the opportunity to consult counsel before being required to answer.

The appellants were convicted of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine following a lengthy police surveillance operation dubbed 'Project Odyssey'.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in his handling of a confidential informant privilege application, in refusing to stay proceedings for alleged police misconduct, and in rendering unreasonable verdicts based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the in camera, ex parte procedure used for the privilege claim, upholding the trial judge's factual findings regarding police conduct, and concluding the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supported the convictions.

The applicant sought appointment of counsel for a criminal convictions appeal after receiving legal aid for a sentence appeal but not for the convictions appeal.

The Crown conceded the applicant lacked means, that the appeal met the merit threshold, and that he could not effectively present the appeal personally, but argued the appeal could be decided without appointed counsel.

The court held that appointment of counsel was desirable in the interests of justice, given the applicant's youth, the seriousness of the convictions, the overlap with the sentence appeal, and the need for an independent advocate on issues including the curative proviso.

The application was granted, with the endorsement directed to the Legal Aid Director and, failing issuance of a certificate, counsel to be appointed under s. 684(1).