Reid Rusonik

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at an apartment.

The police testified the accused arrived carrying a bag containing the drugs, while the accused testified he arrived empty-handed for a sexual encounter and the police mistook him for his brother, the target of the warrant.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the police investigation severely flawed—including missing notes, failure to secure video surveillance, and inconsistent testimony—and concluding the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt under the W.(D.) framework.

The accused was charged with assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm.

The incident occurred on New Year's Eve 2013/January 1, 2014 near Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto.

The Crown alleged that the accused head-butted Officer Bragg, causing facial fractures and other injuries.

The accused testified that he fell to the ground with Officer Bragg, and that Officer Bragg's head struck his head as they fell.

The court found that the evidence presented four completely different versions of events from the officers and the accused, making it impossible to determine how the injuries were sustained.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

The offender was sentenced for offering a bribe to police officers contrary to s. 120(b) of the Criminal Code after attempting to avoid arrest during an unlawful police search and detention.

The offender offered approximately 100 pounds of marihuana and later added $120,000 in cash to induce the officers to release him.

The court emphasized that bribery of police officers constitutes a serious attack on the integrity of the justice system and requires strong general deterrence.

Aggravating factors included the significant value of the bribe, persistence in offering it, and its connection to serious drug trafficking.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of prior custodial sentence, apology, and the fact the attempt arose during police breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

A custodial sentence of nine months was imposed with credit and mitigation resulting in a further four months’ imprisonment.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence of drugs, money, and bribery statements obtained during a police investigation.

The court found that police arbitrarily detained the accused during a traffic stop based on racial profiling, violating his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

Months later, relying on information obtained during that unlawful detention, police conducted a warrantless search of the accused's storage locker and vehicle, discovering a large quantity of marihuana and cash.

The court held that the warrantless search violated section 8 of the Charter and excluded the drugs and money under section 24(2).

However, the court ruled that the accused's statements offering bribes to the officers during the arrest were admissible, as they constituted the actus reus of a new offence and were not causally connected to the Charter breaches.

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 brought a Charter application alleging a violation of s. 8 after police accessed and downloaded data from the airbag control module (ACM) of his vehicle without a warrant following a fatal motor vehicle collision.

The court held that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data stored on the vehicle’s onboard computer and that the police conduct in entering the vehicle, cutting the flooring, and imaging the data constituted an unreasonable warrantless search.

However, applying the framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The breach was moderate, the evidence was reliable and real, and society’s interest in adjudicating a fatal dangerous driving charge on its merits was high.

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 was charged with weapons offences related to possession of an illegal handgun.

He brought an application to exclude the gun from evidence, alleging that police conduct violated his Charter rights.

The officer stopped the accused based on suspicion that he might be one of two Fountain brothers, one of whom might be wanted.

After clarifying the accused's identity and confirming no warrants existed, the officer continued to detain the accused to complete a field investigative report (FIR card).

When a third party suddenly interjected, the accused's demeanor changed and he adopted a blading stance.

The officer, concerned for safety, conducted a pat-down search and discovered the gun.

The court found an unlawful detention during the FIR process but held that the pat-down search was lawful as it was conducted in response to exigent circumstances triggered by the accused's sudden threatening posture.

The gun was admitted into evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

During a blended voir dire in a prosecution for possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, the Crown sought to admit a videotaped police interview with the accused.

The court assessed whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary under the common law confessions rule.

The evidence showed the interviewing officer repeatedly suggested that providing information was required for the accused’s bail report and failed to provide a police caution informing the accused that statements could be used against him at trial.

Considering the inducement relating to bail and the absence of a caution, the court found a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

The statement was ruled inadmissible.

Sentencing for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, carrying a concealed weapon, and possession of proceeds of crime following a judge-alone trial.

The court considered the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and the concept of the mandatory minimum as an "inflationary floor" in firearm sentencing jurisprudence.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s relatively modest record and the severe immigration consequence of automatic deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Aggravating factors included the dangerous combination of a loaded handgun and drug trafficking activity.

The court imposed the three‑year mandatory minimum for the firearm offence with a consecutive one‑year sentence for drug trafficking, resulting in a four‑year global sentence, with enhanced pre‑trial custody credit at 1.5:1 due to harsh remand conditions.

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.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences after police executed a search warrant at an apartment and discovered a handgun, drugs, and cash.

The accused admitted possession of a quantity of cocaine and proceeds of crime but denied possessing the handgun and a second quantity of drugs, alleging police fabricated evidence.

Applying the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.), the court accepted the evidence of Emergency Task Force officers that the handgun was found in the accused’s waistband during the arrest and rejected allegations of fabrication.

The court found inconsistencies and improbabilities in the accused’s testimony and concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the firearm.

However, the court had a reasonable doubt regarding the additional quantity of drugs allegedly discovered in the apartment due to irregularities in the handling and documentation of exhibits, and convicted only on the quantity the accused admitted possessing.

The accused was sentenced for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a guilty plea.

A general warrant executed at his residence revealed involvement in methamphetamine production and drug trafficking.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended 15 months' incarceration.

The key issue was whether a sentence reduction should be granted for the accused's surrender of significant contraband items, including a machine gun, methamphetamine, ephedrine, and GBL, valued at approximately $165,000.

The court distinguished between cooperation with police that leads to arrests or investigations versus mere surrender of items, ultimately imposing a nine-month sentence with a six-month credit for the surrender.

The requesting state sought committal of the respondent for extradition to the United States on allegations corresponding to fraud under Canadian law arising from a mass marketing scheme involving counterfeit cheques and wire transfers.

The court reviewed the Record of the Case and supplemental materials describing the alleged operation of a business used to process fraudulent transfers for victims induced to deposit counterfeit cheques and wire funds.

Applying the test under s. 29(1)(a) of the Extradition Act, the court considered whether the evidence disclosed a prima facie case that would permit a properly instructed jury to convict and whether the person before the court was the individual sought.

The court held that certified records in the extradition materials were admissible and that the evidence established both actus reus and mens rea of fraud for committal purposes.

The identity of the respondent as the person sought was also established.

The respondent was ordered committed into custody to await surrender.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine into Canada after returning from Jamaica with two suitcases containing frozen fish stuffed with over a kilogram of cocaine.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused knew the cocaine was in his luggage.

The accused claimed he was bringing the fish back for his girlfriend and was unaware of the drugs.

The court rejected his testimony as not credible, citing his suspicious interactions with the supplier in Jamaica, his failure to inspect the packages, and his false customs declaration.

The court concluded that the only rational inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused knew he was importing cocaine, and found him guilty.

The accused applied under s.24(2) of the Charter to exclude a firearm and ammunition discovered during a vehicle search following a traffic stop.

Police officers claimed the stop was justified by observing the accused using a cellphone while driving and that the vehicle was searched as an inventory search prior to impoundment.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the officers were untruthful about observing cellphone use and that the stated justification for the stop was fabricated.

This rendered the detention arbitrary under s.9 of the Charter.

Given the deliberate police misconduct, admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and the firearm and ammunition were excluded.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that set aside his acquittal and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the police had subjective and objective reasonable grounds to believe the occupants of the vehicle possessed illegal firearms.

Consequently, the arrest and subsequent search incident to arrest were lawful, and there was no violation of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.