Reid D. Rusonik

The accused brought an application for disclosure of a police handler's handwritten notes regarding a confidential informant.

The accused sought the notes to determine whether the informant's information was firsthand, arguing this was necessary to challenge a subsequent warrantless search.

The Crown opposed the application, asserting informer privilege and arguing the information was irrelevant as the reliability of the informant had already been established in a prior ruling.

The court dismissed the application, finding that because the value and reliability of the informant's information had already been determined in a previous Garofoli application, the handler's notes were no longer relevant.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

During his arrest, police officers mistook him for a fugitive and used excessive force, including punching, kneeing, and tasering him while he was handcuffed and compliant.

The court found the officers' testimony to be contrived and untruthful, and accepted the accused's version of events.

Concluding that the police conduct was extra-judicial punishment that offended society's sense of fair play and decency, the court found a breach of section 7 of the Charter and ordered a stay of proceedings under section 24(1).

The defendant was found guilty of possession of MDMA and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, marihuana, and psilocybin.

The court considered the large quantities of drugs, including 4.7 kilograms of cocaine, and the commercial nature of the enterprise as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's lack of a criminal record, employment history, and family ties.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, reduced to 6 years and 6 months after applying 18 months of credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, along with various forfeiture and prohibition orders.

Sentencing for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime under s.354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender had a significant prior criminal record including related drug trafficking offences and had committed the offence shortly after release from a previous custodial sentence.

Despite strong aggravating factors and the Crown seeking a sentence of 2½ to 3 years, the court gave weight to credible evidence of sustained rehabilitation during more than two years on strict bail conditions, including stable employment and family support.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation and community service.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found crack cocaine, marijuana, and cash in a satchel in the back of a pickup truck he was driving.

The accused testified that he rarely drove the truck, which was primarily used by his son, and that he had taken it in a hurry without knowing the satchel was inside.

The court applied the W.D. principles and found the accused's exculpatory account credible, concluding the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the drugs.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude the drugs on the basis of alleged breaches of ss. 8 and 9.

Police observed a known drug user behaving suspiciously and subsequently watched him enter the accused’s vehicle.

During the encounter an officer observed a baggie of suspected crack cocaine in plain view in the vehicle door pocket, leading to the accused’s arrest and a search that revealed additional drugs.

The court rejected the accused’s version of events alleging an unlawful strip-style search and fabrication by police, finding the officers credible and concluding that the detention, arrest, and search were lawful.

The Charter application was dismissed and the drugs were admitted into evidence.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of a firearm and oxycontin seized during execution of a telewarrant search of his hotel room.

The court found the information to obtain the warrant contained misleading statements and omissions, including falsely attributing the accused’s room number to a confidential informant, mischaracterizing surveillance as corroborating criminal activity, and failing to disclose innocent surveillance results.

After excising the misleading information and amplifying the record, the court held the remaining material did not establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The search was therefore unreasonable and violated s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the police conduct was deliberate and egregious, the intrusion into the accused’s residence was significant, and admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.