M. Macchia

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences after police executed a search warrant at his residence and seized approximately 1kg of cocaine from a safe.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application arguing his s. 10(b) right to counsel and s. 8 right against unreasonable search were violated due to delays in facilitating access to a lawyer, questioning before he spoke to counsel, and an unjustified level 3 (strip) search at the police station.

The court found breaches of both s. 10(b) and s. 8.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded the breaches were on the less serious end of the spectrum, had minimal impact on the accused as they did not lead to the discovery of the evidence, and society's interest favoured adjudication on the merits.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused, charged with historical sexual assault, brought an application seeking to delay his s. 276 application regarding the complainant's prior intimate relationship with him until after the complainant's examination-in-chief.

The court dismissed the application, finding that allowing the delay based on a bare-bones notice of application would defeat the spirit and intention of s. 276, prejudice the Crown's ability to prepare, and invite the mischief Parliament sought to address in enacting the provision.

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify by video link from New Brunswick at the upcoming trial for gang sexual assault.

The complainant suffers from progressive Multiple Sclerosis, is immunosuppressed, and cannot be vaccinated against COVID-19.

The court found that the complainant's debilitating medical condition, combined with the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, constituted exceptional circumstances.

The application was granted, allowing the complainant to testify via video link from a secure facility.

The offender pled guilty to possession of 6.2 grams of heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to nine years imprisonment, while the defence sought time served and probation.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record and the highly addictive nature of the drugs as aggravating factors, balanced against his guilty plea and employment as mitigating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment, less 7.5 months credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 22.5 months of additional custody.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences after police executed a search warrant at his residence and found a loaded prohibited firearm, ammunition, and drugs in his bedroom.

The accused pleaded guilty to the drug charges but denied knowledge of the firearm and ammunition, which were found in a shared closet.

A friend of the accused testified that he had hidden the firearm and ammunition in the closet without the accused's knowledge.

Applying the W.(D.) test for credibility, the court accepted the accused's testimony and found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the firearm and ammunition.

The accused was acquitted of the firearm charges.