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.