Meaghan Hourigan

The appellant failed to surrender to the detention centre as required by his release conditions for his appeal.

Despite efforts to confirm his surrender, no information was received.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal as abandoned due to the appellant's non-compliance with release conditions and issued a bench warrant.

The appellant, convicted of drug possession and possession for the purposes of trafficking, appealed his convictions.

The appeal raised two main issues: whether the police used excessive force in violation of section 7 of the Charter, and whether evidence seized from the appellant's jacket should have been excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to a section 8 breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the police force was justified under section 25(4) of the Criminal Code, accepting the trial judge's factual findings regarding the officers' actions.

Regarding the search, the Court agreed with the trial judge that while the search of the jacket violated section 8, the evidence was admissible under section 24(2) due to the likelihood of inevitable discovery.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to exclude evidence obtained during a border search, finding that a border services officer violated the respondent's ss. 7 and 10 Charter rights.

The trial judge determined that the officer had formed a particularized suspicion, engaging the respondent's Charter rights, and applied the R. v. Grant test to exclude the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, deferring to the trial judge's fact-driven findings, particularly on the officer's credibility, and finding no reversible error in the s. 24(2) analysis.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine and appealed on two grounds: the trial judge erred by allowing expert evidence on the likelihood of a drug organization using a blind courier, and by not providing a limiting instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in admitting the expert evidence, particularly because defence counsel introduced the topic during cross-examination and agreed to the rephrased question.

The court also found no need for a limiting instruction as the evidence was not prejudicial and its exploration was a tactical decision by the defence.

The accused was charged with importation of heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after picking up a package containing 2.3 kilograms of heroin from a UPS store.

The package had been intercepted and subject to a controlled delivery by the RCMP.

The accused claimed he was picking up the package for a friend and believed it contained auto parts.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreasonable and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the heroin in the package and in his apartment.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellant, O'Neil Thompson, appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the trial judge erred in not finding an arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter when police boxed in the appellant's car without reasonable grounds.

The Court also confirmed a serious breach of s. 10(b) due to a systemic issue within the Peel Regional Police regarding the immediate provision of the right to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the Court concluded that the serious nature of the Charter breaches, particularly the arbitrary detention and the systemic delay in advising of the right to counsel, outweighed society's interest in the admission of the evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and an acquittal directed.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after border services officers discovered a body pack during a secondary inspection at the airport.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence, arguing she was unlawfully detained during questioning and that officers violated her right to counsel by conducting a search incident to arrest before she could speak with duty counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding the initial questioning was routine screening and that officers were not required to hold off on a search incident to arrest while awaiting a call back from duty counsel.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for drug trafficking.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence based on a finding that the appellant had taken no steps toward rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence, as the appellant had in fact taken significant steps toward rehabilitation both before and after his release on bail pending appeal.

The court allowed the appeal in part, varying the sentence from the trial judge's decision to eight months imprisonment while maintaining the probation term and setting aside the victim surcharge.

The appellants were convicted by jury of importing 7.86 kilograms of cocaine into Canada from Jamaica and each received sentences of 6.5 years imprisonment.

Potts appealed both conviction and sentence; Robinson appealed sentence only.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's jury charge on the mental element of importing, limiting instructions on co-accused statements, right to silence, expert evidence, or character evidence.

The sentencing appeals were also dismissed as the sentences were fit and within the appropriate range for this offence.

During a trial for importing cocaine, the defence applied to admit the accused's videotaped statement to the RCMP as evidence of her reaction and consistency under the Edgar exception.

The accused had been arrested by the CBSA after cocaine was found in her luggage and was interviewed by the RCMP over seven hours later.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the statement was neither made when the accused was first confronted with the accusation nor spontaneous, as she had been in custody for several hours and had time to reflect.

The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The charges arose from a traffic stop initiated for an expired validation sticker, during which police claimed to smell marijuana and subsequently searched the vehicle, discovering packaged drugs.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence based on alleged breaches of Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b)).

The court found that the police officers' testimony was unreliable due to significant discrepancies regarding timing and sequence of events, contradictions between the two officers' accounts, and inconsistencies with independent dispatch records.

The court determined that there were no objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest and search, and that the defendant's right to counsel was breached.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the defendant was acquitted.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed for drug trafficking.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding that the trial judge properly emphasized denunciation and the harm caused by drug trafficking in the community.

The court noted that the trial judge appropriately gave considerable weight to the fact that the appellant had trafficked while on bail for a prior trafficking offense.

Although rehabilitation was not entirely disregarded, it played a secondary role in the sentencing decision.

The sentence was found to be fit, and the appeal was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of 81 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime under $5000 contrary to the Criminal Code.

The offender was a street-level dealer and addict who had no prior criminal record.

The court imposed a nine-month custodial sentence for the trafficking count and an 18-month concurrent conditional sentence for the proceeds count, followed by 12 months of probation.

The court emphasized that while deterrence and denunciation are important principles in drug trafficking cases, rehabilitation remains significant, particularly for first-time offender addicts.

The court rejected the Crown's initial position of 30 months imprisonment and instead imposed a more lenient sentence that reflected the offender's status as a street-level dealer motivated by addiction rather than greed, his genuine efforts at rehabilitation post-arrest, and his improved family circumstances.

The applicants sought disclosure of handler's notes, investigative plans, and payment records relating to a confidential informant used in obtaining a search warrant.

The Crown opposed the disclosure, arguing the request was a fishing expedition.

The court held that while the handler's notes do not normally form part of the investigative file when the handler is not the affiant, the applicants met the "reasonable possibility" or "reasonable likelihood" test for disclosure.

The court found that on the face of the Information to Obtain, reasonable questions arose as to whether the claimed confidential informant was actually a police agent, which is a material issue on a Garofoli application.

The court ordered disclosure of the handler's notes subject to claims of blanket confidential informant privilege or editing, but declined to order disclosure of investigative plans.

The accused, Norine Tulloch, was found guilty by a jury of possession of 260 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a three-year federal penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, mitigating factors (remorse, family support, business prospects) and aggravating factors (prior conditional sentence for a similar offence, association with drug trade).

The court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day to be served in a provincial reformatory, followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders for a DNA sample, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized currency and a notebook.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine discovered during a strip search following a traffic stop.

Police stopped a vehicle with mismatched licence plates and briefly questioned the passenger, who voluntarily provided identification that revealed he was bound by a probation order prohibiting association with persons with criminal records.

After learning the driver had a criminal record, police arrested the accused for breach of probation and discovered a hard object during a pat‑down search, leading to a strip search at the station that revealed cocaine.

The court held that the passenger was not detained during the initial roadside questioning and that brief requests for identification and relationship to the driver did not constitute detention or an unreasonable search under ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter.

The arrest and subsequent strip search were lawful and Charter‑compliant.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant at a preliminary hearing (a Dawson Application).

The applicant was charged with marijuana possession, marijuana production, careless use of a firearm, and two counts of unauthorized possession of a weapon.

The applicant argued that the information in the ITO was only minimally corroborated and that the confidential source was unproven.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not tendered extrinsic contradictory evidence, had not demonstrated facial validity issues with the ITO, and had not shown that the affiant inaccurately or unfairly presented the information.

The proposed cross-examination did not fall within the scope permitted under the Garofoli test.