Leo Russomanno

The accused, charged with ten firearm offences and one count of possession of cocaine, brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of a handgun and cocaine seized from him, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found the investigative detention was lawfully grounded in reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, including the officer's observation of a suspected drug transaction at a location of prior drug activity.

While a s. 10(b) breach was established due to a nearly two-minute delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel upon detention, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach arose from a mistake rather than deliberate misconduct, had minimal impact on Charter-protected interests, and the reliable physical evidence was central to serious charges.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order on charges of robbery and failing to comply with a release order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the proposed surety's reduced work hours and the applicant's experience in custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the Palmer criteria flexibly, the court admitted the fresh evidence and conducted a hearing de novo.

The court concluded that with two strong sureties and a GPS monitoring bracelet, the risk of re-offending or interfering with the administration of justice was sufficiently mitigated.

The applicant was granted bail on strict house arrest conditions.

The accused were charged with armed robbery, conspiracy, and related offences following a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an unsavoury witness who admitted to participating in the robbery and other crimes.

The court applied the Vetrovec warning, requiring corroboration for the witness's evidence.

Finding significant inconsistencies in the identification evidence and a lack of corroborating physical or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both accused were found not guilty.

During a trial for a home invasion and robbery, the accused applied to exclude photo lineup evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused's photo was included in the lineups based on information obtained from an unlawful search of his cellphone by police in an unrelated investigation.

The court applied the Grant framework and found that while the police misconduct was moderately serious, the evidence would have been discovered lawfully by another investigator.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would better serve the truth-seeking function of the trial and dismissed the application.

Following execution of a search warrant at a Kanata residence, police seized cocaine, crack cocaine, two loaded handguns, ammunition, a money counter, packaging materials, and cash.

The court applied constructive and joint possession principles under s. 4(3) of the Criminal Code and the circumstantial evidence framework to determine which occupant controlled the drugs and firearms found in separate bedrooms.

The court found both respondents jointly in possession of the drugs, but only one respondent in possession of each respective firearm found in his bedroom.

The cocaine was held to be possessed for the purpose of trafficking based on surveillance evidence, packaging materials, a scale, a buffing agent, loaded firearms, and a barricaded door, while the crack cocaine supported only simple possession.

The proceeds of crime allegation relating to $195.00 was not proven.

The accused pled guilty to possession of proceeds of crime and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and crack cocaine.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a sentence of two years less a day, but disagreed on whether it should be served in custody or as a conditional sentence.

The court found that while the aggravating factors of commercial trafficking would normally require incarceration, the collateral consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and the accused's asthma tipped the scales in favour of a conditional sentence.

The accused, charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences, underwent a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a release plan involving a surety and GPS monitoring.

The court found the release plan inadequate and ordered the accused's continued detention, concluding it was justified under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, despite the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in correctional institutions.

The accused brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude a loaded firearm found by police during a warrantless search of his vehicle.

The police were responding to a noise complaint and found the accused and others near the vehicle, which the accused denied owning before leaving the scene.

The court found no arbitrary detention or breach of the right to counsel, but concluded the warrantless search violated section 8 of the Charter.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the breach was not at the most serious end of the scale, the accused's privacy interest was diminished, and there was a strong public interest in adjudicating the serious firearm charges on their merits.

Application under s. 29 of the Extradition Act seeking committal of the respondent for surrender to the United States to face prosecution for conspiracy to traffic marijuana.

The court considered whether the record of the case established a prima facie case and whether the respondent was the person sought.

The evidence consisted primarily of a certified record including information from a cooperating witness involved in the trafficking organization and corroborating investigative details.

The court found the informant evidence sufficiently reliable at the committal stage and concluded there was evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could convict.

The court also found on a balance of probabilities that the respondent was the individual identified in the record.

Committal for extradition was ordered pending the Minister’s surrender decision.

The offender was convicted after trial of three counts of trafficking in cocaine and three counts of possessing proceeds of crime under $5,000 arising from a police sting operation involving small-scale cocaine sales over three days.

The offender was a first-time offender with stable employment and parental responsibilities but did not testify at trial and did not accept responsibility for the offences.

The court emphasized the importance of denunciation and deterrence in cocaine trafficking cases while also considering the offender’s youth and rehabilitative prospects.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the offender’s lack of remorse and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing.

A custodial sentence followed by a lengthy probation order was imposed to balance denunciation with rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with three counts of trafficking crack cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and three counts of possession of proceeds of crime under the Criminal Code arising from controlled purchases conducted by an undercover officer over three consecutive days.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the individual known as “Cinderella” who sold the drugs, pointing to several investigative deficiencies including failure to preserve buy money and failure to conduct a lineup.

The court rejected these arguments, finding the surveillance evidence, photographs, and continuity of observation established identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also accepted the evidence of the undercover officer regarding the drug transactions and proceeds.

Convictions were entered on all trafficking and proceeds of crime counts.