Alexandre Kaufman

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel and a conditional stay of proceedings under ss. 7, 11(d), and 24(1) of the Charter on the basis that he could not afford counsel and required representation to make full answer and defence in a complex criminal prosecution involving 21 counts, including criminal organization and drug trafficking offences.

The court accepted that the charges were serious and involved some complexity but found significant deficiencies in the evidentiary record supporting the claim of financial inability.

Evidence suggested the accused had assets, income, and potential access to seized funds, and had prioritized maintaining property interests over funding his defence.

The court held the accused had not demonstrated he exhausted all reasonable avenues to retain counsel.

The Rowbotham application was therefore dismissed.

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert witness on drug trafficking indicators in a prosecution for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The proposed opinion evidence addressed crack cocaine consumption patterns, typical quantities held by users, and the absence of consumption tools as indicative of trafficking.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and subsequent guidance from appellate jurisprudence, including Sekhon, emphasizing the trial judge’s gatekeeping role regarding expert evidence.

The court held the proposed opinions were largely anecdotal, insufficiently grounded in specialized expertise, and not necessary to assist the trier of fact.

Given the modest quantity of drugs seized and the proximity of the opinion to the ultimate issue of intent, the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value and the evidence was excluded.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order seeking state-funded counsel after Legal Aid funding and subsequent appeals were denied.

The charges included more than 75 offences involving drug trafficking, weapons, and proceeds of crime, and the Crown anticipated a lengthy and complex trial.

While the court accepted that the charges were serious and complex and that Legal Aid had been refused, it found the accused failed to establish financial indigence.

The accused had not exhausted available avenues to obtain counsel, including applying for the release of seized assets under s. 462.34(4) of the Criminal Code, and failed to provide full disclosure regarding substantial precious metals purchases exceeding $134,000.

The court concluded that the accused had not demonstrated inability to fund counsel privately and dismissed the Rowbotham application.

The Crown sought an interlocutory injunction preventing the defendant language training business from copying or distributing materials substantially similar to federal Second Language Evaluation tests used for public service hiring.

The court applied the test for interlocutory injunctions and found a serious issue to be tried regarding copyright infringement in Crown-created examination materials.

It concluded that prior access to official test questions would undermine the integrity of the federal language testing regime and cause irreparable harm to the public interest and the Public Service Commission’s mandate.

The balance of convenience favoured protecting the confidentiality of the tests while allowing the defendant to continue operating her business using other materials.

An injunction was granted restraining further use of the protected test content pending trial.