Melody Foerster

The applicant sought to exclude evidence and/or obtain a stay of proceedings due to alleged breaches of Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10, including unlawful arrest, arbitrary detention, warrantless vehicle search, delay in right to counsel, unreasonable residence search, and unlawful detention of occupants.

The court dismissed all applications, finding the arrest lawful, the high-risk takedown reasonable, no breach of the right to counsel, the vehicle search lawful incident to arrest, and the residence entry and search reasonable given the circumstances and lack of sufficient evidence of unreasonable damage.

The offender was convicted of human smuggling under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for driving illegal immigrants from Cornwall to Toronto.

The Crown sought a 15-18 month conditional sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or a 6-month conditional sentence.

The court found the offender's moral blameworthiness was low, as he was duped by his brother and had no profit motive.

Emphasizing the principle of proportionality, the court imposed a 6-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The offender was convicted of human smuggling under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for his role as a courier transporting undocumented individuals from the US border to Toronto.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a 15-month conditional sentence.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the organized nature of the scheme and the exploitation of his brother against mitigating factors including a positive pre-sentence report, financial desperation, and lack of related criminal record.

The court concluded that a 15-month conditional sentence, followed by two years of probation, would adequately address denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was charged with offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for his role in transporting individuals who had been smuggled across the US-Canada border into Cornwall.

The accused claimed he was merely doing a favour for his brother and was unaware of the illegal nature of the enterprise.

The court found that the accused's brother had informed him of the passengers' documentary deficiencies, raising a real suspicion that the accused deliberately chose to ignore.

Applying the doctrine of wilful blindness, the court concluded the accused possessed the requisite mens rea and entered convictions.

The Crown applied under s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code to have a prior Charter ruling from a first trial applied to a second trial after the first proceeding ended in a mistrial.

The mistrial had been declared when the trial judge disclosed a personal relationship with a key investigating officer, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Crown argued that, pursuant to s. 653.1 of the Criminal Code, evidentiary and Charter rulings made before the merits stage should remain binding in the retrial unless contrary to the interests of justice.

The court held that the integrity of the justice system and the requirement of impartial adjudication outweighed efficiency concerns.

Given the risk that the public might perceive the earlier ruling as tainted by unconscious bias, the Charter application should be reheard.

In a joint prosecution for drug trafficking and firearm possession, the accused brought a motion seeking disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to prior charges against each accused that had been withdrawn, stayed, or resulted in acquittals.

The request was framed as a third‑party records application under the regime established in R. v. O’Connor.

The court considered whether such materials met the first‑stage threshold of “likely relevance” in relation to credibility, character, and propensity issues anticipated at trial where each accused intended to blame the other.

The court held that occurrence reports relating to withdrawn allegations of drug trafficking and possession of stolen property could meet the low threshold of logical relevance for disclosure purposes.

Production to the court of limited police synopsis “front sheets” relating to the withdrawn charges was ordered for judicial review, subject to Crown redactions for privilege and a later balancing of privacy interests against the right to full answer and defence.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at their residence, alleging the warrant was invalid and the search violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

They argued the information to obtain relied excessively on confidential informants whose reliability and motivations were insufficiently disclosed, and that the information failed to establish reasonable grounds linking the residence to drug trafficking.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the Garofoli standard and held that the issuing justice had a sufficient evidentiary basis to authorize the warrant.

Surveillance evidence, corroborated informant information, and covert entries into a related suspect’s residence collectively established reasonable and probable grounds.

The applications to exclude the seized evidence were therefore dismissed.

Two accused were charged with drug offences arising from a police investigation of a suspected marijuana grow operation at 21 St. Clair Avenue in Ottawa on June 25, 2010.

Eneida Pino was charged with possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Randall Scott Edwards was charged with possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and unlawfully producing cannabis marijuana.

The Crown alleged that Pino removed a box containing 50 marijuana clone plants from the residence and placed it in her vehicle.

Edwards was found inside the residence during the execution of a search warrant.

Pino claimed she believed the box contained groceries and was unaware of its contents.

Edwards' defence was that the Crown failed to prove he was party to the grow operation enterprise or in possession of the marijuana.

The court found Pino guilty as charged, rejecting her testimony as incredible and finding she had knowledge and control of the marijuana for trafficking purposes.

The court acquitted Edwards, finding insufficient evidence to prove he exercised control over the grow operation or possessed the marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant challenged a search warrant executed on March 10, 2005, as violating section 8 of the Charter.

The defendant raised four categories of complaints: (1) the use of hydro records obtained without a warrant; (2) insufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the search; (3) misconduct by the affiant detective in securing the warrant; and (4) improper authorization and execution in evening hours.

The court found that while the hydro records were properly obtained, the warrant lacked reasonable and probable grounds because the credibility foundation for the informant information was insufficient.

The court excluded all evidence obtained pursuant to the unconstitutional search under section 24(2) of the Charter.