R. Farrington

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at his apartment and found cocaine, scales, dime bags, weapons, and ammunition.

The accused pleaded guilty to simple possession but denied the purpose of trafficking, testifying that the drugs and paraphernalia belonged to a guest who had left them behind.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's exculpatory testimony as incredible and illogical.

Relying on the expert evidence of a police detective regarding indicia of trafficking, the court found the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with making and possessing child pornography and luring a child after exchanging sexually explicit messages and images with a 9-year-old complainant on a dating website and messaging app.

The accused testified she believed the complainant was an adult, relying on the dating site's age restriction, the complainant's profile, and the mature nature of the conversation.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and held that, given the unusual circumstances of a child posing as an adult on an adult dating site, the Crown failed to prove the accused did not take reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging violations of his s. 8 rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, seeking exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant was drafted hastily and lacked sufficient grounds, and that police caused unreasonable damage to his property during the search.

The court found the ITO contained sufficient reliable evidence to justify the warrant and that the applicant failed to prove police caused unreasonable damage.

The application was dismissed, with the court noting that even if a breach had occurred, a Grant analysis would favour admitting the evidence.