Laura Melania Precup-Pop

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He challenged the trial judge's dismissal of his Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his person and vehicle.

The appellant argued that the police used a false pretext of a seatbelt violation under the Highway Traffic Act to arbitrarily detain him and search for drugs in violation of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the initial stop was lawful based on an actual seatbelt violation, and that the subsequent search was authorized under the Cannabis Control Act based on reasonable grounds to believe cannabis was in the vehicle.

The appeal was dismissed.

This decision addresses Ali Baek's Charter application to exclude evidence (10 kg of cocaine) seized from his residence, alleging breaches of his section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court conducted a Garofoli review of the warrants and orders, finding that the initial tracking warrant and production orders were issued without reasonable grounds due to erroneous, speculative, and misleading information provided by the police.

The police conduct was characterized as serious, involving reckless disregard for Charter rights and a failure of full and frank disclosure.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on Baek's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence, leading to its exclusion.

Fabricio Osores pleaded guilty to possession of a Schedule III substance (psilocybin) for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000, stemming from his employment as a retail clerk at an illegal "magic mushroom" dispensary.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of drugs and cash, the open and notorious nature of the illegal business, and the lack of quality control or warnings for consumers.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of prior record, limited role as a clerk, guilty plea, and remorse.

The Crown sought a six-month conditional sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized the need for general deterrence and denunciation for participants in such overt illegal operations, disagreeing with prior decisions that minimized these principles for retail clerks.

A conditional discharge was deemed contrary to the public interest.

The court imposed a 60-day conditional sentence order, followed by one year of probation and 100 hours of community service, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and victim fine surcharges.

The accused, Dennis Mensah and Marvin Nyarko Mensah, were sentenced following a judge-alone trial where Dennis was found guilty of firearms and drug trafficking offences (fentanyl and carfentanil), and Marvin was found guilty of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs, the presence of a loaded firearm (for Dennis), and the sophistication of the operation.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, social context evidence of anti-black racism and growing up in a high-crime, low-income area, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay some firearms charges for Dennis.

Dennis received a total sentence of 4.5 years, and Marvin received 5.5 years, with credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included lifetime weapons prohibitions and forfeiture of seized items.

Dwayne Vernal was arrested and charged with drug trafficking after a search incident to arrest for assault with a weapon, assault, and threats.

He brought an application under sections 8, 9, and 24(2) of the Charter to challenge the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest and to exclude the seized drugs from evidence.

The court found that the arresting officers had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, based on the complainant's description, surveillance footage, and the accused's identical clothing and location.

Consequently, the arrest and the subsequent search incident to arrest were lawful, and the seized evidence was admissible.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, Vahid Pashazahiri, brought an application to exclude evidence (fentanyl, morphine, and cash) seized during his arrest, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search), 9 (arbitrary detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, rendering the subsequent search unlawful.

Additionally, the officer delayed advising the accused of his right to counsel, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the "without delay" standard.

Applying the Grant framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the state's Charter-infringing conduct and its significant impact on the accused's liberty and privacy interests outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits, despite the reliability and importance of the evidence.

Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was granted.

The applicant, Cordell Rumbaki, brought a pre-trial motion alleging a violation of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to the execution of a search warrant at his residence, seeking exclusion of seized fentanyl under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that there were sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to issue and execute the search warrant, and that alleged sub-facial defects in the Information to Obtain (ITO) did not invalidate the warrant.

The motion was dismissed, and the seized evidence was deemed admissible for the upcoming trial.