Paul Greenway

The defendant, Jacob Martin Norn, was sentenced for manslaughter and trafficking fentanyl after supplying the drug to a friend who subsequently died.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the dangerous nature of fentanyl, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation, while also weighing mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of prior criminal record, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Despite arguments for a conditional sentence and alleged Charter breaches, the court imposed a custodial sentence, emphasizing the defendant's continued drug use post-conviction and the societal impact of fentanyl trafficking.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation.

The police officer smelled freshly burnt marijuana and the accused admitted to smoking earlier.

The officer searched the vehicle under the Cannabis Control Act and found drugs.

The accused brought an application to exclude the evidence, arguing breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found the officer lacked reasonable grounds to search the vehicle, violating s. 8, and that an unexplained 17-minute delay in providing rights to counsel violated s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the Charter-infringing conduct serious and the impact on the accused's rights significant.

The defendant was arrested based on the odour of burnt marijuana detected by police during a traffic stop.

Following the arrest, police conducted a strip search at the roadside without proper grounds or informational requirements, and delayed informing the defendant of his right to counsel for approximately 50 minutes.

The defendant was charged with possession of controlled drugs for trafficking, assault with intent to resist arrest, administering a noxious substance, and failing to comply with probation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including an unlawful arrest, unreasonable delay in providing s. 10(b) rights, and an improperly conducted strip search.

All evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and importing less than one kilogram of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to four years in penitentiary, while the defence sought six to nine months.

The court imposed a sentence of three and a half years (1,278 days) on the importing charge, with credit for restrictive bail time reducing the sentence to serve to three years (1,098 days), and a concurrent six-month sentence on the possession charge.

The court considered the defendant's background, employment history, and character references, but emphasized that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the serious nature of drug importation and the defendant's prior trafficking conviction.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine for trafficking, possession of heroin for trafficking, possession of hydromorphone for trafficking, possession of cannabis for trafficking, possession of hashish for trafficking, and possession of hashish oil for trafficking, as well as failing to comply with a probation order.

The Crown conceded counts 1 and 3.

The central issues were whether the police had reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant, whether the strip search was conducted lawfully, and whether the evidence obtained should be excluded under the Charter.

The court found that while the police had reasonable grounds to arrest and the strip search was justified, it was not conducted in a reasonable manner, violating section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence from the strip search was excluded.

The defendant was convicted of the included offences of simple possession of marijuana, hashish, and hashish oil, and failing to comply with probation.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay, alleging a breach of his section 11(b) Charter rights.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 40 months and one week.

The court attributed only two weeks of this delay to the defence, resulting in a net delay of 39 months and 3 weeks, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption by demonstrating exceptional circumstances, as the court found that neither lengthy defence cross-examination nor an unsuccessful certiorari application constituted defence delay or exceptional circumstances, particularly given the Crown's own disclosure issues and the simplicity of the case.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The applicants, jointly charged with drug trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop.

The court found that the police stop was a pretext based on racial profiling, constituting arbitrary detention (s. 9) and an unlawful search (s. 8).

Additionally, the applicants' rights to be informed of the reason for detention and to counsel (s. 10(a) and (b)) were infringed.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that the serious Charter violations, particularly racial profiling, warranted the exclusion of all evidence obtained from the vehicle search and any subsequent utterances.

The defendant was charged with drug trafficking offences arising from a 2013 police investigation into crack cocaine trafficking from an apartment building in Oshawa.

Police received confidential human source information and conducted surveillance, including video surveillance of common areas, leading to search warrants for apartments 308 and 404.

The defendant challenged the warrants on Charter grounds, arguing deficiencies in the Information to Obtain and asserting violations of his Section 8 rights.

The court found the defendant lacked standing to challenge the search of apartment 404 due to insufficient evidence of his connection to the premises.

On the merits, the court acquitted the defendant of all charges, finding the Crown failed to prove possession of the drugs beyond a reasonable doubt due to lack of evidence establishing the defendant's occupancy, control, or connection to the apartment and the specific items seized.