Michael Robb

Two accused were jointly charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences following a police traffic stop and brief pursuit.

Controlled substances were discovered in plain view on the centre console of the vehicle, and a civilian witness observed the passenger discard a plastic bag containing a handgun nearby.

The court held that both accused had joint knowledge and control of the drugs and were guilty of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The driver was convicted of fleeing police and dangerous driving but acquitted of the joint firearm offences due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge of the firearm.

The passenger was found guilty of all firearm-related offences and possession while prohibited.

The accused applied under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence obtained after Canada Border Services Agency officers examined his cell phone during a secondary inspection at the Sarnia border crossing.

Police had previously created a border 'Lookout' based on an investigation suggesting the accused possessed child pornography but lacked sufficient grounds for a warrant.

During a routine secondary inspection triggered by the lookout, an officer briefly viewed the accused’s phone and observed an image believed to be child pornography, leading to arrest and further searches.

The court held that routine border searches of goods, including electronic devices, fall within the powers granted under s. 99 of the Customs Act and do not engage the same privacy expectations as domestic searches.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

During a drug raid, the accused was arrested and given his right to counsel multiple times.

He initially nodded his head indicating a desire to speak to counsel, but later told the booking officer 'not really' when asked if he wished to contact a lawyer now.

He subsequently made spontaneous statements to an investigating officer before being cautioned again.

The Crown applied to admit the statements as voluntary, while the defence applied to exclude them under ss. 7, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the statements were voluntary.

The court also found a technical breach of s. 10(b) because the police failed to clarify the accused's change of mind regarding counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), concluding the breach was minor and the accused clearly understood his rights but chose not to exercise them.

In a proposed securities class action alleging misrepresentations in the primary and secondary markets, the plaintiffs sought an order compelling defendants to deliver statements of defence and requested that the certification motion be heard together with a leave motion under s. 138.8 of the Securities Act.

The defendants opposed delivering defences before certification and sought a sequence of motions beginning with the leave motion, followed by Rule 21 motions and then certification.

The court held that pleadings should generally be completed before certification and that ordering the delivery of a statement of defence was not contrary to law or due process.

However, the court limited the requirement to defendants who filed affidavits under s. 138.8(2) of the Securities Act, while permitting other defendants to plead voluntarily without losing the ability to bring Rule 21 motions.

The court further ordered that the leave motion and certification motion be heard together to avoid delay, inefficiency, and serial appeals.