Peter Lam

This decision addresses the constitutional validity of a search warrant issued based on information from a confidential source (C.S.) and corroborated by police investigation.

The court analyzed the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain (ITO) under the test established in R. v. Debot, focusing on the credibility, compelling nature, and corroboration of the C.S.'s information.

The judge rejected the accused's argument that exclusion of evidence from a prior unlawful search undermined the warrant's validity.

The court found the warrant was reasonably granted, emphasizing the detailed, recent, and corroborated information provided by the C.S. and police, and upheld the admission of evidence obtained.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered 55.69 grams of cocaine in an apartment where the offender arrived with a key.

The offender had no prior criminal record, was employed in his father's business, and was the primary caregiver for his father who suffered from Parkinson's disease, dementia, and colon cancer.

The Crown sought five months incarceration; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation or, alternatively, a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence with the first five months under house arrest and the final three months with a curfew, followed by one year of probation with 100 hours of community service.

The defendants, F.I. and E.M., applied for a mistrial after being found guilty of sexual assault by a jury.

The application was based on the jury selection process, which did not allow peremptory challenges, following new procedures implemented on September 19, 2019.

This was argued to be contrary to the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Chouhan, which held that the abolition of peremptory challenges should not apply retrospectively to cases where the accused had a vested right to a trial by judge and jury under prior legislation.

The court dismissed the application, noting that counsel had not objected to the new jury selection process at the time of selection.

The judge adopted reasoning from R. v. Azzi, emphasizing the public interest in finality, the impact on the complainant, and the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada had granted leave to appeal the Chouhan decision, militating against a post-verdict mistrial.

The court addressed a conflict of interest issue arising before the commencement of a five-day trial involving two co-accused charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

Defence counsel for one accused was also representing the other accused in separate ongoing criminal proceedings.

The court found that the divided loyalties between two current clients created a substantial risk that counsel's representation would be materially and adversely affected, and disqualified counsel from representing the first accused.

The court held that independent legal advice could not remedy the fundamental problem of divided loyalty between concurrent clients.

The defendant was charged with numerous firearm-related offences following the discovery of two loaded firearms in his bedroom.

The sole issue at trial was the lawfulness of the police search.

Police attended the defendant's residence in response to a 911 call regarding his health.

While paramedics assessed him, officers entered his bedroom without consent to locate clothing for the defendant.

During this search, officers discovered a firearm in a bag on the bed.

A warrant was subsequently obtained to search the bedroom, resulting in the seizure of a second firearm.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the initial warrantless search and the validity of the warrant based on evidence obtained through the unlawful search.

The accused was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police surveillance and a search warrant led to the discovery of 216 grams of cocaine in the accused's basement, where he was living with his spouse and children.

The Crown sought four years' imprisonment while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of three and one-half years' imprisonment with a six-month credit for strict bail conditions, resulting in three years' actual imprisonment.

The court rejected the conditional sentence argument, emphasizing the large quantity of cocaine, the prior trafficking conviction while on conditional sentence, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused pleaded guilty to marijuana production and fraudulent consumption of electricity.

The Crown sought 18 months of incarceration, while the accused sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with strict conditions, including 12 months of house arrest and electronic monitoring.

The court found this was a rare case warranting a conditional sentence despite the sophistication of the grow operation, the accused's prior record, and the aggravating features including a downed live electrical hydro line.

Significant mitigating factors included the accused's cognitive and emotional challenges stemming from a serious assault ten years prior, his willingness to take responsibility and warn police of dangers, and his motivation to earn money for family court litigation.

The defendant was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and contained misleading statements.

The trial judge conducted a Garofoli application to assess whether the warrant should have been issued.

After excising a reference to an unsubstantiated admission by an occupant of a vehicle stopped near the defendant's home, the court found that sufficient grounds remained to justify the warrant's issuance.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter section 8 challenge and found the defendant guilty of both counts.

The accused challenged the validity of a search warrant issued to search a residence suspected of containing a marijuana grow operation.

The defence argued that a nine-day gap between the last observation and the date of arrest rendered the warrant invalid and constituted a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The court conducted a Garofoli review and found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrant, including direct observations of marijuana odour, FLIR thermal imaging showing heat anomalies, hydro consumption records indicating unusual usage patterns, and absence of occupancy indicators.

The court dismissed the application, finding the warrant was lawfully issued.

The accused was charged with marijuana production and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

At trial, the defence sought leave to cross-examine the affiant on the search warrant to challenge its sub-facial validity.

The defence proposed questioning on five points: the specifics of observations made in April 2013, the tip from a confidential human source, the significance of Hydro readings, the significance of FLIR observations, and the absence of confirming observations on the day of arrest.

The court applied the test from R. v. Pires and found that the defence had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination on four of the five points would assist in determining the material issue.

However, the court granted leave to cross-examine on the FLIR observation point, finding a reasonable likelihood that such cross-examination would be relevant to the material issue of whether there was a basis for the issuing justice to be satisfied there were reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for the offence of operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg.

The sentencing judge had imposed a suspended sentence and probation despite the offender having a prior related conviction and a very high blood alcohol reading.

The Crown argued the sentence was illegal or demonstrably unfit because it failed to recognize the applicable minimum punishment and inadequately considered deterrence.

The appeal court held the sentence was demonstrably unfit and failed to properly account for prior convictions and the aggravating blood alcohol level, though incarceration was inappropriate because the offender had completed the sentence.

The court allowed the appeal and substituted a $2,000 fine.

The accused brought a bail review application seeking release after previously consenting to a detention order.

The proposed release plan included multiple sureties, virtual house arrest, and culturally appropriate addiction counselling through Aboriginal support services.

The court considered the application of Gladue principles at the bail stage, recognizing that decision-makers must assess the unique circumstances of Aboriginal accused persons when liberty is at stake.

Despite finding no concern on the primary ground, the court concluded the accused failed to show cause on the secondary ground due to an extensive criminal record, prior breaches of release conditions, and allegations of serious drug trafficking while already on bail and probation.

Detention was therefore confirmed.