Louie R. Genova

Alceste Pileggi was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of cocaine (1 kg with an estimated street value of $40,000-$65,000) and the financial motivation, and mitigating factors, such as no prior criminal record, strong family support, remorse, and judicial resource savings due to an agreed statement of facts after Charter issues were resolved.

The Crown sought a sentence of five to eight years, while the defence sought three to four years.

The court imposed a sentence of four years and four months, reduced by 13 months for stringent pre-trial bail conditions (25% credit for 26 months), resulting in a balance of three years and three months imprisonment.

Ancillary orders for a DNA sample and a ten-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The applicant, Alceste Pileggi, sought to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his residence and subsequent detention and questioning, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure), 9 (arbitrary detention), 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The police executed a telewarrant for drug trafficking offences, using a forced entry.

The court found no infringement of Pileggi's Charter rights, determining that the telewarrant procedure was justified by impracticability, the forced entry was reasonable given concerns for evidence destruction and officer safety, his detention and handcuffing were not arbitrary, and he was promptly informed of the initial charge.

While there was a delay in accessing counsel, police efforts were reasonable and not deliberate, and Pileggi ultimately spoke with duty counsel.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Crown and Ontario Provincial Police appealed a disclosure order requiring production of a drug recognition expert's rolling log.

The rolling log documented all drug evaluations conducted by the DRE from training through certification.

The respondent was charged with drug-impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The trial judge ordered disclosure of the rolling log, and the motion judge affirmed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the rolling log was "obviously relevant" material subject to first party disclosure under the Stinchcombe regime, and that disclosure was permitted under the exception in section 258.1(2)(a) of the Criminal Code even when anonymized.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision to exclude breathalyser results under s. 24(2) of the Charter and overturn the accused's conviction for driving over 80.

The summary conviction appeal judge had found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel of choice.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that any breach was minor, the officer acted in good faith, and the accused suffered no prejudice as he spoke with duty counsel and was satisfied with the advice.

The Court concluded that excluding the reliable breathalyser evidence would do more harm than good to the administration of justice, and restored the conviction.

The four appellants were convicted for their roles in the $3.1 million robbery of a Loomis armed truck.

The robbery was an 'inside job' masterminded by a Loomis guard and a police officer.

The Crown's case relied heavily on accomplice testimony, wiretap evidence, and cellular phone records.

On appeal, the appellants raised several issues, including the validity of wiretap authorizations, the failure to give a Carter instruction, and the impermissible use of hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals of three of the appellants against conviction, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias in the wiretap authorizations and no error in the omission of the Carter instruction due to defence counsel's tactical decisions.

However, the court allowed the appeal of one appellant, finding that the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to use a co-accused's hearsay statement to bolster an accomplice's credibility against him, and ordered a new trial for that appellant.

The court also reduced one appellant's sentence to account for pre-trial custody but upheld the compensation orders for the unrecovered stolen funds.

The Crown sought an extension of time to serve a notice of application for leave to appeal and notice of appeal after a summary conviction appeal judge quashed a conviction and entered an acquittal.

Applying the factors governing extension motions, the court held that the Crown formed a bona fide intention to appeal within time, exercised reasonable diligence in attempting service, caused no prejudice by two-day late service, and advanced an eminently arguable appeal.

The court also held that a structured internal Crown appeal approval process in criminal matters is appropriate and that a 20-day decision-making period was reasonable.

The extension was granted in the interests of justice.