Peter B. Wenglowski

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of hydromorphone, and possession of proceeds of crime following a search warrant execution at an apartment.

The court found that the search warrant lacked sufficient grounds for issuance due to the Crown's failure to disclose the confidential informant tearaway (Appendix E) and inadequate corroborating surveillance.

Although the defendant lacked standing to challenge the apartment search, the court found his arrest and personal search unlawful under section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence seized from the defendant's person was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in insufficient evidence to proceed on the trafficking and proceeds of crime charges.

The simple possession charge also failed due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's knowledge and control.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80) and driving without a valid license.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, arguing his s. 10(b) right to counsel was violated.

The court found the defendant explicitly waived his right to counsel on multiple occasions despite police efforts to facilitate contact with duty counsel.

The defendant's statements were found to be voluntary.

On the trial proper, the court found the defendant was driving within two hours of the first breath test, satisfying the statutory requirement for the presumption of identity.

The defendant was convicted on both charges.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 169 pounds of marijuana in a van that fled a roadblock and crashed.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove the accused was the driver and that he had possession of the drugs.

The court held that the combination of the officer’s brief observation of the driver, the accused’s wallet containing extensive identification documents, and a prescription inhaler bearing his name established identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected arguments that the officer’s viewing of a single health card photograph fatally tainted the identification evidence.

Given the accused’s role as driver, the large quantity of marijuana, the smell of the substance, and the flight from police, the court inferred knowledge and control over the drugs.

The accused was stopped by a police officer who suspected drug activity based on a hunch after observing a woman leaning into the accused's car at a motel.

The officer searched the accused's purse and car without a warrant, finding prescription drugs and cash, and delayed her access to counsel for nearly an hour.

The court found multiple Charter violations, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), unreasonable search (s. 8), and denial of the right to counsel (s. 10(b)).

Concluding that the breaches were serious and significantly impacted the accused's Charter-protected interests, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2).

A defendant was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in prescription drugs following a traffic stop and roadside search.

The court conducted a Charter application to determine whether evidence obtained during the stop should be excluded.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the investigative detention, the warrantless search of her purse and vehicle, and the denial of timely access to counsel.

The court found that the detention was arbitrary, lacking reasonable suspicion; the search was unlawful, as there was no valid consent and no genuine officer safety concern; and access to counsel was improperly delayed.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these Charter breaches under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant sought to quash two search warrants and exclude seized evidence under s. 8 and s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the warrants were issued without reasonable and probable grounds.

The Crown contended the searches were lawful and, alternatively, that evidence should be admitted.

The court reviewed the information to obtain (ITO) based on five confidential informants and extensive police surveillance, applying the Garofoli and Debot tests for assessing search warrant validity and informant reliability.

The court found that the totality of circumstances, including corroborated informant tips and observed patterns of suspicious activity (such as chemical burns and continuous occupation of a barn suspected of housing a clandestine drug lab), provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrants.

The application was dismissed, as no s. 8 Charter breach was found.

The accused, Patrick McKinnon, was charged with possession of heroin and breach of recognizance.

A Charter application was brought alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 related to the traffic stop, detention, and questioning.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the initial traffic stop lawful due to a suspected Highway Traffic Act violation.

The subsequent detention of the passenger (McKinnon) was deemed lawful as it was contemporaneous with the driver's investigation and later justified by reasonable suspicion of McKinnon's involvement in alcohol consumption and marijuana possession.

The questioning and seizure of McKinnon's name were also found not to be unreasonable.

Ultimately, McKinnon was found guilty on both counts of possession of heroin and breach of recognizance.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of an Information to Obtain (ITO) for search warrants related to a methamphetamine lab.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed cross-examination areas were either irrelevant, speculative, risked breaching confidential informant privilege, or would not elicit probative value to discredit the reasonable grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The court emphasized the high threshold for granting leave to cross-examine affiants, the importance of protecting informant identity, and the need to avoid unnecessary and time-consuming proceedings.

The accused brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9, arguing that police lacked reasonable grounds for his arrest and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for search warrants was insufficient.

The investigation began with a weak tip from a confidential informant, which led to police surveillance revealing a pattern of short, secretive interactions indicative of mobile drug trafficking.

The court found that the totality of the circumstances, particularly the surveillance evidence, provided objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest.

After excising one misleading statement from the ITO, the court concluded the remaining information was sufficient to justify the search warrants, dismissing the application.

The accused brought a pretrial Charter motion seeking exclusion of drugs seized after police stopped his vehicle during an investigation for another suspect who had fled from police.

The defence alleged breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The court held that the vehicle stop constituted a lawful investigative detention supported by a nexus between the vehicle occupants and the suspect being pursued.

The subsequent arrest for driving while suspended and the search incident to arrest were lawful, and the seizure of drugs in the vehicle was justified under the plain view doctrine.

No Charter breach was established and the evidence was not excluded.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking exclusion of heroin, cash, and a digital scale discovered during a warrantless arrest and vehicle search, alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Police had acted on a confidential informant’s tip alleging heroin trafficking from a vehicle and conducted two days of surveillance documenting multiple brief stops, short interactions with individuals, and what an officer described as a hand‑to‑hand exchange at a residence associated with a heroin user.

The court assessed the reliability of the tip and the police observations under the totality of the circumstances and the reasonable grounds standard under s. 495(1) of the Criminal Code.

Although individual observations might have been consistent with innocent conduct, the pattern of repeated brief stops and interactions corroborated the tip and provided objectively reasonable grounds for arrest.

Because the arrest was lawful, the search incident to arrest was also lawful and the evidence was admissible.

The accused was charged with possession of unstamped manufactured tobacco contrary to section 32(1) of the Excise Tax Act, 2001.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly transported a trailer containing 126 boxes of fine cut tobacco worth approximately $1.3 million.

The defence contended the accused believed he was hauling wooden pallets and had no knowledge of the actual contents.

The trial judge rejected the defence evidence as incredible and found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including the value of the cargo, the locked trailer without documentation, and the accused's decision to avoid a truck inspection station by taking an alternate route.

The accused, Mechelle Rogers, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 1.5 kg of cocaine in the trunk of a vehicle in which she was a passenger.

At the close of the Crown's case, she brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict based on circumstantial evidence and the law of constructive possession.

The court found that while there was evidence she knew illegal activity was taking place, there was no evidence she knew the substance was cocaine or had any control over it.

The motion was granted and a directed verdict of acquittal was entered.