Michael Wendl

The appellant appealed his sentence of 3 years and 7 months for robbery, arguing the sentencing judge erred by crediting his pre-sentence custody at 1.25:1 instead of 1.5:1, and by placing undue weight on his criminal record.

The Crown conceded the error regarding pre-sentence custody credit.

The Court of Appeal applied the standard of review from Lacasse and found no other errors in principle, noting the appellant was a mature recidivist and the robbery was planned and involved an imitation weapon.

The court allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence by 94 days to reflect the 1.5:1 credit, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.

The accused brought an application to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence of drugs found in his apartment, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked full and frank disclosure and relied on unreliable confidential informants.

The court excised certain unconstitutionally obtained information from the ITO but concluded that the authorizing judge could still have granted the warrant based on the remaining record.

The court also noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The application was dismissed.

The accused applied for a stay or exclusion of evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter after police discovered cocaine and cash during a vehicle stop.

The defence argued the traffic stop was a pretextual ruse based on a hunch about drug activity.

The court held that the officer had lawful authority under s. 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act to stop the vehicle to verify licensing and investigate suspicious circumstances.

Drugs became visible when the accused exited the vehicle, providing reasonable grounds for arrest and a search incident to arrest.

The court also found the subsequent strip search at the station reasonable under the principles set out in Golden.