Maurice Mirosolin

The accused sought exclusion of cocaine and related evidence discovered in a tractor‑trailer at the border after border services officers used the cargo for an impromptu detector dog training exercise.

The court held the accused had standing to challenge the search of the commercial load and that the manipulation of the cargo solely for a training exercise fell outside the statutory authority of s. 99(1)(a) of the Customs Act.

The conduct violated ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter because the inspection authority had effectively been spent once officers were satisfied there was no contraband.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court found the officers acted in good faith, the privacy impact at the border was low, and society’s interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.

The cocaine and related evidence were admitted.

The accused, a truck driver, was charged with importing cocaine into Canada and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after 69 kilograms of cocaine were discovered hidden in bins of oranges in his trailer at the border.

The central issue at trial was whether the accused knew about the cocaine concealed within the load.

The court relied heavily on physical and forensic evidence, including suitcase wheel impressions on the lids of the orange bins matching suitcases found in the accused’s truck cab.

The court rejected the accused’s explanation that he found the suitcases in the garbage and concluded the suitcases were used to transport the cocaine across the loaded bins before concealment.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused’s testimony neither credible nor capable of raising a reasonable doubt and held the Crown proved knowledge and control of the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt.

The offender was sentenced after being convicted of impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death arising from a single-vehicle crash that killed a passenger.

The offender, a youthful first offender with no criminal record, had a projected blood‑alcohol concentration between 200 and 270 mg/100 ml and was travelling approximately twice the speed limit when he lost control of the vehicle.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence in fatal impaired driving cases while weighing mitigating factors including youth, good character, community support, and genuine remorse.

Conditional stays were entered on counts of causing death while over 80 and dangerous driving causing death pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence reflecting the seriousness of the conduct and the loss of life.

At his new trial for manslaughter, the accused sought to adduce evidence of two prior violent attacks by the deceased against him to support his claim of self-defence.

The Crown did not oppose this but sought to adduce reply evidence of the accused's prior convictions for violence.

The court ruled that the accused could adduce the evidence of the deceased's prior violence, but doing so would open the door for the Crown to adduce evidence of the accused's disposition for violence to ensure the jury had a balanced picture of the parties' respective dispositions for aggression.