Brian Puddington

The applicants, a media organization and its reporter, sought to revoke or stay the enforcement of a production order compelling them to turn over communications with an alleged ISIS recruiter.

The Supreme Court of Canada had previously upheld the validity of the order.

The applicants argued that recent reports from CENTCOM indicating the target was killed in an airstrike rendered the order moot and its enforcement an abuse of process.

The Superior Court held that the applicants were estopped from relitigating the order's validity.

Furthermore, the court found that because the RCMP had been unable to independently verify the target's death, their decision to continue the investigation and enforce the order was reasonable and did not constitute an abuse of process.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after police executing a search warrant observed her at a window and later located a pink pencil case outside containing approximately 135 grams of methamphetamine packaged in multiple baggies.

The court accepted the evidence of a police officer who observed a flash of pink leaving the accused’s hand and later recovered the case below the apartment window.

Defence evidence asserting that a window screen made it impossible to throw the case outside was rejected as inconsistent and unreliable.

While the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and knowingly discarded the drugs, the Crown failed to prove that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking, as there was no additional indicia of trafficking discovered during the search.

The accused was therefore convicted of simple possession but acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused applied for production of investigative records from the Special Investigations Unit arising from his arrest during the execution of a search warrant, during which he sustained serious injuries.

The application was brought to support a potential Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under ss. 7, 12, and 24(1).

Applying the framework from R. v. O’Connor, the court balanced the accused’s right to make full answer and defence against the confidentiality interests asserted by the SIU.

The court found the SIU witness interviews and follow-up reports highly probative of the circumstances of the arrest and necessary for the accused’s Charter claims.

The privacy interests asserted by the SIU were limited because the statements related to officers performing public duties and confidentiality promises were not absolute.

Production of the reports and interviews to the defence was ordered subject to standard disclosure conditions.

The applicant sought to prevent prosecution for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking on the basis of issue estoppel.

In an earlier conditional sentence breach hearing, the court had dismissed the allegation after finding the Crown failed to prove possession because the evidence consisted of inadmissible hearsay.

The applicant argued that the earlier finding constituted a final determination of the factual issue of possession.

The court held that the three-part test for issue estoppel was satisfied because the same factual issue had been conclusively determined between the same parties in the prior proceeding.

To avoid inconsistent factual findings and ensure fairness to the accused, the court entered a judicial stay on the trafficking-related possession charge.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The police arrested the accused and searched his vehicle based on information from a confidential informant and subsequent surveillance.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the informant's tip lacked sufficient detail and reliability, and the police surveillance did not adequately corroborate the information to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The court concluded the arrest was unlawful, rendering the subsequent search a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the seized drugs and cash under section 24(2), finding the police conduct reckless and based on a mere hunch.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing approximately 2.963 kilograms of cocaine into Canada after the drugs were discovered concealed in suitcase linings at Pearson International Airport.

The Crown sought a seven‑year custodial sentence while the defence requested a five‑year sentence, relying on mitigating factors including the offender’s age, lack of criminal record, stable employment history, and role as a courier.

The court reviewed sentencing ranges established by appellate jurisprudence for large multi‑kilogram cocaine importations and emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the primary objectives in drug importation cases.

While recognizing several mitigating factors, the court found they did not justify departing from the established six‑to‑eight‑year sentencing range.

A custodial sentence at the low end of that range was imposed together with mandatory ancillary orders.