Reid Rusonik

The accused, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought a Charter s. 8 application alleging that police officers staged a break-in at his residence and made an anonymous call to trigger a warrantless entry, leading to the discovery of drugs and cash.

The defence relied on voice identification evidence to argue that the lead investigator made the anonymous call.

The court evaluated expert voice comparison evidence, the status of the ongoing police investigation, and the officers' whereabouts.

The court concluded on a balance of probabilities that the police did not stage the break-in or make the anonymous call, and that the warrantless entry by responding officers was justified.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, or alternatively, the exclusion of further evidence under s. 24(2), following a previous finding that police had manipulated the crime scene during the execution of a search warrant.

The court applied the Babos test for abuse of process and concluded that while the police conduct was offensive, a stay was not warranted as a fair trial was still possible and the prior exclusion of evidence adequately dissociated the justice system from the misconduct.

The court also declined to allow the accused to re-litigate the s. 24(2) issue.

The accused were charged with importing cocaine into Canada after arriving at Pearson International Airport from St. Lucia with cocaine hidden in their suitcases.

They admitted to the importation but raised the defence of duress, claiming they were threatened at gunpoint and tortured by men in St. Lucia who forced them to carry the drugs.

The court rejected the defence, finding the accused's testimony lacked credibility and was contradicted by their actions and communications.

The court further held that even if the threats had occurred, the accused had a safe avenue of escape by reporting the matter to Canadian authorities upon arrival.

Both accused were convicted.

The defendants were charged with importing cocaine after a controlled delivery of a package from Colombia.

The package contained cocaine hidden inside metal grinding wheels.

One defendant accepted the package at his residence, while the other was observed driving nearby in apparent counter-surveillance.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either defendant knew the package contained imported cocaine.

Both defendants were found not guilty.

The applicant, Huntley Golding, sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights due to the confidential source's alleged lack of credibility and reliability, and the Information to Obtain (ITO) failing to establish a reasonable probability of illegal drugs.

The court, applying the Garofoli test, found that the issuing justice had a sufficient basis to grant the warrant, considering the totality of circumstances and the compelling first-hand information provided by the informant, despite her criminal record and motive to lie.

The application was dismissed.

Zachary Barton was found guilty by a jury of multiple firearms offences.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings or a new trial, alleging police failed to preserve or disclose exculpatory video evidence.

The court dismissed this application, finding the defence failed to establish the existence of the alleged video footage.

Subsequently, the court proceeded to sentencing, considering Barton's extensive criminal record, the seriousness of the offences involving a loaded prohibited firearm, and sentencing principles.

A global sentence of 10 years imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 6 years and 9 months.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA sample.

Three accused were tried for drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences following a police investigation that resulted in three distinct seizures of cocaine and marijuana.

The court found the first accused not guilty, accepting his testimony that he was a 'blind courier' without knowledge of the drugs in the box he delivered.

The court found the second accused guilty of possessing cocaine found in a 'stash house', rejecting his cousin's exculpatory testimony and relying on circumstantial evidence of his control over the premises.

The court found the third accused guilty of possessing drugs found in his apartment, rejecting his testimony that the drugs belonged to a houseguest.

The applicants sought disclosure of handler's notes, investigative plans, and payment records relating to a confidential informant used in obtaining a search warrant.

The Crown opposed the disclosure, arguing the request was a fishing expedition.

The court held that while the handler's notes do not normally form part of the investigative file when the handler is not the affiant, the applicants met the "reasonable possibility" or "reasonable likelihood" test for disclosure.

The court found that on the face of the Information to Obtain, reasonable questions arose as to whether the claimed confidential informant was actually a police agent, which is a material issue on a Garofoli application.

The court ordered disclosure of the handler's notes subject to claims of blanket confidential informant privilege or editing, but declined to order disclosure of investigative plans.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence, including a loaded restricted firearm, found during a police investigation at an apartment building.

The police attended the building after receiving an anonymous tip about a gun.

The court found that the police breached the accused's section 8, 9, and 10(b) rights during his initial detention and search, and breached his section 8 rights by entering his apartment without a warrant.

However, the court held that neither accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common hallway where the firearm was discovered inside a plant cylinder.

The court also upheld the validity of a subsequent search warrant for the apartment.

As a result, the firearm and evidence found during the warranted search were ruled admissible.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The accused brought a pretrial motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating that the matter was a "particularly complex case" involving extensive wiretap evidence, multiple accused, and voluminous disclosure.

The court concluded that the Crown had a reasonable plan to manage the complexity and dismissed the application for a stay.

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.

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

One week after the jury was discharged, a juror sent a letter to the court expressing doubts about her verdict and describing feeling pressured during deliberations.

The accused applied for a mistrial based on this letter.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the contents of the letter were inadmissible under the common law rule of judicial secrecy, as they related to the internal deliberation process rather than extrinsic influences.

Furthermore, the court held it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to declare a mistrial after the verdict had been recorded and the jury discharged.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained from two Informations to Obtain (ITOs) that authorized production orders and tracking warrants, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant argued the ITOs relied on unsourced and uncorroborated information from confidential informants, failing to establish reasonable grounds.

The court applied the totality of the circumstances test and found the informants' tips were compelling, credible, and sufficiently corroborated by police surveillance.

The court held the issuing justice could reasonably have found the requisite grounds and dismissed the application.

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 accused brought an application for a review of a bail hearing following a detention order on consent.

He was charged with break and enter, robbery, and pointing a firearm arising from a home invasion.

The court treated the application as a hearing de novo.

The court found the accused failed to meet his onus under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds of s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, noting his extensive criminal record, flight risk, and the gravity of the offence.

The proposed surety was also deemed unsuitable.

The application for release was dismissed.

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.

The accused was charged with possession of a restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code after police executed a search warrant at a residence and located a handgun and ammunition in the accused’s bedroom closet.

The accused denied knowledge or control of the firearm and testified that numerous family members had access to the room in a crowded household.

Evidence showed that the search warrant was obtained following a social media post by the accused’s brother displaying a firearm.

The court found the accused’s testimony credible and accepted that multiple occupants could freely enter the room.

The evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused knowingly possessed the firearm or ammunition.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained following a warrantless arrest for suspected cocaine trafficking.

Police relied on anonymous tips and surveillance showing several brief meetings between the accused and unidentified individuals.

The court held that although officers honestly believed drug trafficking was occurring, the information from informants was unreliable and the observed meetings were capable of innocent explanation.

The police therefore lacked objectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

The arrest violated s. 9 of the Charter and the resulting searches of the accused and his vehicle infringed s. 8.

The applicant, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a pre-trial application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

He alleged that his s. 7 rights were infringed due to late, incomplete, and inadequate disclosure by the Crown, and that the Crown's conduct amounted to an abuse of process.

The court found no evidence of missing or undisclosed relevant documents and concluded that the late disclosure was remedied by an adjournment.

The court held there was no trial unfairness or abuse of process, and dismissed the application.