Mark Snider

Brandon Sero and Marie Miller were charged with drug trafficking offences following a search warrant executed on February 8, 2024.

Sero brought a Charter application under section 24(2) to exclude evidence seized during the search, arguing the warrant was invalid due to breaches of section 8 rights.

The applicant challenged the validity of the warrant, claiming the Information to Obtain failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds and that confidential source information was insufficiently credible, compelling, and corroborated.

The court found the warrant was valid despite material omissions from the ITO regarding the background and credentials of confidential sources.

The court applied the Garofoli process to manage disclosure while protecting informer privilege and ultimately dismissed the Charter application, finding the evidence admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after striking two cyclists on the shoulder of the road.

The court found the offender engaged in a prolonged pattern of dangerous driving, including speeding, tailgating, and driving while prohibited.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to four years' imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently, along with a lifetime driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and death after his vehicle struck a group of cyclists standing on the shoulder of the road.

The court found that the accused engaged in a pattern of dangerous driving, including tailgating, excessive speed, and failing to pay attention to his surroundings.

The court rejected the accused's testimony that he was forced to make a split-second decision to avoid a collision, finding instead that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant brought a certiorari application to quash his committal for trial on charges of an indecent act and sexual assault.

He argued the preliminary inquiry judge lost jurisdiction by failing to recognize an absence of evidence regarding subjective intent for the indecent act, and by improperly relying on a video statement and insufficient identification evidence for the sexual assault.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error.

The court held there was sufficient evidence from which a trier of fact could infer intent, and that the preliminary inquiry judge's decision on the adoption of the video statement was an evidentiary ruling not subject to judicial review.