Laura Ann Gdak Tripp

The accused was charged with multiple offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) for possession of various drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and under the Criminal Code for impaired driving by drug and several firearm-related offences.

A voir dire was conducted to address Charter breaches (s. 8, 9, 10(b)) concerning the Standardized Field Sobriety Test (SFST) demand, arrest, drug evaluation, and vehicle inventory search.

The court found no Charter breaches, ruling the evidence admissible.

Subsequently, the accused was convicted on all CDSA counts and most Criminal Code counts, including impaired driving, possession of a restricted firearm, and various careless transportation and prohibited device charges.

Acquittals were entered for two ammunition-related counts due to the ammunition being non-functional.

The applicant, Omar James, charged with drug trafficking, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant and seeking exclusion of evidence.

The application alleged violations of his s. 8 Charter right due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO), unauthorized video surveillance in a common hallway, improper acquisition of rental car information, non-disclosure of material information in the ITO, and failure to satisfy the Debot test for confidential informants.

The court dismissed the application, finding no s. 8 Charter breach and, alternatively, that the evidence would have been admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Two defendants were sentenced for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following their arrest during a traffic stop in which 31 grams of cocaine and a digital scale were found in their vehicle.

The Crown sought six months incarceration for each defendant.

The defendants argued exceptional circumstances warranted departure from the standard sentencing range.

The court imposed six months incarceration on the first defendant, finding insufficient exceptional circumstances, but imposed 90 days intermittent incarceration on the second defendant, finding his intellectual disability and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a below-range sentence.