Mark R. Miller

The accused, Craig Grant, faced six counts related to the possession of a firearm, an extended magazine, and ammunition, following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The sole issue at trial was possession, which the Crown sought to prove through circumstantial evidence.

The defence proposed an alternative theory, suggesting another individual present in the residence could have quickly placed the items in the accused's satchel and nightstand upon police entry.

The court found the accused's testimony to be incredible and unreliable.

After assessing the circumstantial evidence and the defence's alternative theory, the court found the defence's explanation implausible due to insufficient time for the alleged actions to occur during the police entry.

Consequently, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was in possession of the seized items and found him guilty on all counts.

The applicant challenged the issuance of a search warrant and his subsequent arrest, arguing violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The application sought to exclude seized evidence, including a handgun, cocaine, and currency, under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant, applying principles of warrant review, and found that the authorizing justice had reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of drug-related offenses would be found at the specified address.

The court concluded that the observed interactions were consistent with drug transactions and that the applicant's connection to the address supported the probability of finding evidence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no Charter violations were found.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Viraphone Savina Ackharath and Alea Sabira Baksh, who are charged with importing and conspiracy to import a controlled substance.

Ackharath challenged the admissibility of her statements, arguing a violation of her s. 9 Charter rights due to an arbitrary arrest without reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the Border Services Officer had objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, considering factors such as the accused being a travelling companion of someone arrested for smuggling, their origin from a known source country for controlled substances, and being flagged for secondary inspection.

Consequently, no s. 9 Charter breach was found.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if a breach had occurred, the admission of the statements would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter, given the non-serious nature of any potential breach and the minimal impact on the accused's rights, particularly as she was immediately advised of and given access to counsel.

The Crown's application for the admissibility of all statements was granted.

Jacek Mucha pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He was already serving a seven-year sentence for a related conspiracy to traffic cocaine in Halifax.

The Crown sought a two-year consecutive sentence, while the Defence sought a two-year concurrent sentence.

The court adopted a three-step process for sentencing, determining the appropriate length, then whether it should be consecutive or concurrent, and finally applying the totality principle if consecutive.

The court found a two-year sentence fit and ordered it to run concurrently with the existing Halifax sentence, citing a sufficiently close connection between the two offences due to overlapping locations, dates, substance, and police investigations.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, a Secondary DNA Order, and forfeiture of seized cash.

The accused was charged with multiple Criminal Code offences including uttering threats, assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault with a weapon, mischief, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, making child pornography, and voyeurism.

He was also charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences including trafficking cocaine, production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for trafficking, and possession of cocaine.

The trial hinged on the credibility of the complainant and a second witness.

The court found both witnesses to be unreliable, manipulative, and not credible.

The accused testified that the activities were consensual BDSM play.

The court acquitted the accused of all Criminal Code charges and found him guilty of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana (as a lesser included offence to trafficking), but not guilty of trafficking cocaine or production of marijuana.

The defendant was charged with trafficking cocaine, possessing cocaine, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing cash obtained through criminal activity.

The defendant elected trial in Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown relied on surveillance evidence and a search warrant executed at the defendant's residence.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 regarding the validity of the search warrant and the arrest.

The court found the Information to Obtain was full, fair, and frank, the police observations were consistent with drug trafficking, and the warrantless entries into the common areas of the residential building were authorized by property management.

The Charter application was dismissed and the defendant was found guilty on all four counts.

The Crown sought to introduce a 911 call recording and transcript as evidence in a trial for breaking and entering, assault, and threatening bodily harm.

The complainant, Matthew Turner, testified that he could not recall the events of October 31, 2016, and was uncertain whether the voice on the 911 recording was his own.

The Crown argued the 911 call was admissible under the res gestae exception to hearsay or alternatively under a principled approach to hearsay.

The defence opposed admission on both grounds.

The court ruled the 911 call admissible under the res gestae exception as a spontaneous statement made in the immediate aftermath of traumatic events while the caller was under emotional stress with no opportunity to fabricate.

The defendant was charged with trafficking cocaine following surveillance by Halton Regional Police.

Officers observed the defendant meet with another individual in a rural area, during which the other person reached his hands into the defendant's vehicle.

Cocaine was subsequently found in the other person's vehicle and cash was found in the defendant's possession.

The defendant argued the evidence was circumstantial and that an innocent explanation existed—that the two men were lost and discussing directions.

The court found that the inference of guilt was the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence and convicted the defendant.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon following an incident on March 6, 2011.

The accused pled guilty to two counts of breach of probation and not guilty to the remaining four counts.

After a trial spanning multiple dates, the court found the accused guilty of uttering threats to cause death to the complainant and a third party, assault, and sexual assault (as a lesser included offence, not sexual assault with a weapon).

The decision reflects a pattern of domestic violence within a long-term relationship marked by substance abuse and repeated breaches of court orders.