Nicholas White

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a vehicle search.

The Crown alleged the accused possessed 497.32 grams of cocaine found in a concealed compartment in the rear seat of his BMW.

The accused challenged the arrest and search on Charter grounds, arguing arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found a breach of section 9 of the Charter due to the officer's failure to confirm complete bail conditions before arrest, but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking but acquitted of failure to comply with bail conditions due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the second cell phone was operational.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of cannabis marihuana under 3 kilograms for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000.

The defence brought a Charter challenge seeking exclusion of evidence obtained through alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) of the Charter.

The court found that the officer conducted an unjustified investigative detention without reasonable grounds, failed to inform the accused of the reason for detention or rights to counsel, and conducted a warrantless search without proper justification.

The court determined that the Charter breaches were serious and that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused brought an application to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence of drugs found in his apartment, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked full and frank disclosure and relied on unreliable confidential informants.

The court excised certain unconstitutionally obtained information from the ITO but concluded that the authorizing judge could still have granted the warrant based on the remaining record.

The court also noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The application was dismissed.