M. Owoh

The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.

He was charged with possessing crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and a loaded restricted firearm.

The court found a material change in circumstances because disclosure revealed the Crown's case was significantly weaker than presented in the initial police synopsis, and the applicant proposed a more stringent release plan including GPS monitoring.

The court concluded that detention was not justified on either the secondary or tertiary grounds and ordered the applicant's release on strict conditions with three sureties.

During a proceeding for a carjacking and shooting, the Crown sought to introduce non-expert recognition evidence from a police officer to identify one of the accused from security video.

The officer's prior interactions with the accused occurred mostly when the accused was a child, were brief, and were undocumented.

A subsequent interaction was specifically directed by a superior officer for the purpose of identification.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding the officer lacked sufficient prior acquaintance and that the post-offence contact was tainted by its investigative purpose.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 11.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 11 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the large quantity of drugs and financial motive, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and status as a courier.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years imprisonment, along with a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused was convicted by a jury of importing between 6.5 and 8.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7 years' incarceration, while the defence argued for 6.5 years, citing time spent on bail as a mitigating factor.

The court found that the accused's bail conditions were not sufficiently stringent to warrant a reduction in sentence.

Applying the established sentencing range for first-time offenders importing large quantities of cocaine, the court sentenced the accused to 7 years' incarceration, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicant, charged with importing cocaine, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after his Legal Aid certificate was cancelled due to his income level.

The court reviewed his financial circumstances and found he was not indigent, as he was fully employed and had discretionary income.

Furthermore, the court determined the case was straightforward, involving a short border investigation and a single issue of knowledge, meaning counsel was not essential for a fair trial.

The application was dismissed.