2 total
Evidence excluded under s. 24(2) due to systemic police delay in implementing right to counsel.
The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found drugs in his vehicle during the execution of a search warrant.
The accused brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing the search warrant was improperly issued and his right to counsel was delayed.
The court found the search warrant for the vehicle was valid, but the warrant for the residence was invalid.
The court also found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel due to a systemic police practice of delaying access to counsel until after a search warrant is executed.
Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence seized from the vehicle and the accused's statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter.
Motions for directed verdicts dismissed for two accused but granted for the consignee due to insufficient evidence.
The three accused faced various charges relating to the importation of 29 kilograms of heroin and 600 grams of opium concealed in a shipping container of marble stone.
At the close of the Crown's case, all three accused brought motions for directed verdicts.
The court dismissed the motions brought by two of the accused, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer their knowledge and participation in the drug importation and trafficking scheme.
However, the court granted the motion for the third accused, the consignee of the shipment, finding no evidence reasonably capable of supporting an inference that he knew about the drugs, and entered not guilty verdicts on his charges.
