2 total
The court dismissed the accused's Charter applications, admitting evidence of drug trafficking despite technical breaches of search warrant notice provisions.
The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of General Warrants and Search Warrants executed in a drug trafficking investigation.
The General Warrants, issued for covert surveillance of two residential locations, failed to include the statutorily required notice provision under section 487.01(5.1) of the Criminal Code, constituting a facial invalidity and breach of section 8 of the Charter.
The Search Warrants were subsequently obtained using information derived from the facially invalid General Warrants.
The court found that while the General Warrants were facially invalid due to the missing notice provision, the Search Warrants could otherwise have been issued based on the totality of the evidence, including amplified tracking data.
The court also addressed allegations of arbitrary detention and breach of the right to counsel.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the Charter applications, finding that despite the breaches, the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under the section 24(2) analysis.
Drug trafficking charges were dismissed after evidence was excluded due to a pretextual and unlawful warrantless vehicle search.
The accused, Gabriel Bogdanov, faced charges of possessing crack cocaine and powder cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.
He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 (unreasonable search), s. 9 (arbitrary detention), and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.
The court found that the police search of his vehicle, purportedly based on the smell of cannabis, was unlawful due to contradictory and illogical police testimony regarding the odour and the presence of cannabis residue.
The detention and subsequent arrest were deemed arbitrary, and there was a significant delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel.
Applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis, the court determined that the police conduct constituted a flagrant disregard of Charter rights.
Consequently, all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches was excluded, leading to the dismissal of all charges against the accused.
