Paul M. Cooper

The accused were charged with multiple counts of importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine into Canada from Trinidad and Grenada.

The Crown's case relied on the testimony of couriers, fingerprint evidence on the seized suitcases, and circumstantial evidence including travel records and items seized from Guthrie's home.

The court found the couriers' testimony to be unreliable and fraught with inconsistencies.

The court also found the fingerprint and circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the loss of police search videos and photos.

Both accused were found not guilty on all counts.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain a search warrant for his residence in a drug importation case.

The applicant argued there was no reasonable basis to believe evidence would be found at his residence and sought to cross-examine on surveillance, misrepresentations, lack of connection to the residence, and travel patterns.

Applying the Garofoli test, the court found the applicant established a reasonable likelihood that limited cross-examination would elicit testimony of probative value.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on specific, restricted areas identified by the applicant.

The applicant sought to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence seized from his residence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading information and material non-disclosure.

The Crown alleged the applicant was the primary overseer for three shipments of cocaine intercepted at Pearson International Airport.

The reviewing judge applied the Garofoli standard, excising erroneous information and assessing the totality of the remaining evidence.

The court concluded that despite some omissions, the issuing justice could have found reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit a videotaped police statement made by the accused during a homicide investigation.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the statement on the grounds that it was involuntary and obtained in breach of s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applying the confessions rule from R. v. Oickle, the court assessed whether threats, inducements, oppression, lack of an operating mind, or police trickery undermined voluntariness.

The court found the police interview tactics—including accusatorial questioning, references to investigative techniques, and moral appeals—did not overbear the accused’s will and did not amount to improper inducements or oppressive conduct.

The court further held that the accused was not psychologically detained prior to arrest under the framework in R. v. Grant and R. v. Suberu, and therefore her right to counsel under s. 10(b) was not breached.

The November 22 statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.