Robert Tremblay

The applicant was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and firearm-related offences.

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter motion challenging the validity of search warrants for his residence and two vehicles, and alleging that a search of a storage locker was warrantless and unauthorized.

The Crown conceded that the storage locker search was warrantless.

The court found that the search warrants for the residence and vehicles were validly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds, but that the warrantless search of the storage locker violated section 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the evidence obtained from the storage locker under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on privacy rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The appellant appealed his convictions for production of methamphetamine, possession for the purpose of trafficking of methamphetamine, and possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the pre-trial application judge erred in finding that the Crown had justified a no-knock entry to the appellant's home during the execution of a search warrant, and whether this constituted a violation of s. 8 Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's findings, concluding that the no-knock entry was justified based on reasonable police concerns for safety, including the simultaneous execution of multiple search warrants, potential presence of weapons, the volatile nature of methamphetamine laboratories, and evidence preservation concerns.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and the sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The accused, Sylvie Marshall, was found guilty by a jury of importing cocaine into Canada.

The court, in its sentencing decision, determined that she imported a minimum of 8.5 kilograms of cocaine.

The court rejected her claims that she was compelled by threats from her former husband and that she was unaware of the illicit contents of the cans, finding her testimony inconsistent and lacking credibility.

While acknowledging the history of abuse she suffered, the court concluded it conditioned her actions rather than compelling them.

Considering aggravating factors, including the substantial quantity of cocaine and the involvement of her eight-year-old son, and mitigating factors such as her status as a first offender, her efforts towards rehabilitation, and her remorse, the court imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought a pre-trial motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused intended to advance a duress defence based on being a victim of intimate partner violence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary foundation for the proposed questions was insufficient and that the questions themselves were inappropriate as they presumed contested facts.

The court held that tailored jury instructions would be the appropriate mechanism to address potential juror bias regarding intimate partner violence once the evidentiary record was established at trial.

Keron Findley pleaded guilty to possession of prohibited firearms (one with a removed serial number) and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the Defence requested three years and seven months.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years and ten months (1400 days), with a deduction of 216 days for pre-trial custody, resulting in 1184 days remaining.

The judge considered the gravity of the "toxic combination" of guns and drugs, the accessibility of firearms to children, and mitigating factors including the defendant's guilty plea, remorse, work history, strong family support, and the harsh conditions of pre-trial custody due to institutional lockdowns.

Mandatory weapons prohibition orders, a forfeiture order, and a DNA order were also imposed.

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to quash a search warrant executed at his residence, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The ITO relied heavily on a tip from a confidential informant regarding drug trafficking and firearms possession.

The court applied the Garofoli and Debot frameworks, finding the informant's tip was highly compelling and credible, which compensated for weaknesses in police corroboration.

The court concluded the issuing justice had sufficient reliable information to issue the warrant, finding no s. 8 breach.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and other offences following a traffic stop.

The driver threw a brick of cocaine out the window while the passenger resisted arrest.

The court rejected the driver's exculpatory testimony, finding him guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, but acquitted him of simple possession and dangerous driving.

The passenger was found guilty of possession of proceeds of crime and resisting arrest, but acquitted of the drug charges as there was insufficient evidence he knew the cocaine was in the vehicle.

During a joint criminal trial, one co-accused testified and implicated the other.

The implicated co-accused sought to cross-examine the testifying co-accused on a previously struck guilty plea and subsequently applied for severance.

The court ruled that cross-examination on a struck guilty plea is legally impermissible, as a struck plea must be treated as if it never happened to protect the presumption of innocence.

The court also dismissed the severance application, finding that a joint trial would not cause an injustice and that the implicated co-accused could still mount a full answer and defence without referencing the struck plea.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 7,007 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought six and one-half years imprisonment while defence sought five years.

The court imposed a sentence of five and one-half years, granting credit for pre-trial custody at 1.5 times (Summers credit) and an additional 1:1 Duncan credit for lockdown days.

The court considered the defendant's difficult personal circumstances, including an abusive relationship, mental health issues, and the collateral consequences of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic as factors warranting a reduction from the typical sentencing range of 6-8 years.

The accused was charged with importing heroin, conspiring to import heroin, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiring to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The charges arose from a controlled delivery of a package containing heroin concealed in mascara tubes.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the package contained a controlled substance and that it came from outside Canada.

The accused was found guilty of importing heroin and possession for the purpose of trafficking, but acquitted of the conspiracy charges due to insufficient evidence of an agreement with others.

Malcolm Williams was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court determined the appropriate sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the quantity of cocaine (28 grams), commercial motive, and public location, and mitigating factors including no prior criminal record, strong family support, and admission of facts.

The Crown sought 18 months, while the defence sought 9 months minus pre-trial credit.

The court imposed an 11-month sentence after applying a reduction for exceptional circumstances, including 15 months under restrictive house arrest.

A 10-year weapons prohibition and DNA order were also issued.

Malcolm Williams was charged with assault and two counts of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He conceded the drug allegations but sought to exclude the evidence as unlawfully obtained.

The trial on the assault charge and a voir dire on the drug evidence admissibility proceeded as a blended hearing.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding the assault charge, resulting in an acquittal.

For the drug charges, the court dismissed the motion to exclude evidence, finding that security guards were not government actors for Charter purposes and their actions, while lengthy in detention, did not render the trial unfair under common law discretion.

Consequently, Williams was found guilty of the two cocaine trafficking counts.

Natalia Giselle Smith was charged with importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine.

Her co-accused, Charita Maryah Johnson, was convicted.

The Crown relied on actual knowledge to establish Smith's liability, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Smith knew she was importing a prohibited substance.

The court admitted Johnson's videotaped statement to police under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding it necessary due to Johnson's hostile testimony and reliable due to corroborating evidence and voluntariness.

Despite circumstantial evidence linking Smith to the cocaine, including possession of luggage tags and paying excess fees, the court found that the possibility of luggage sharing and Johnson's inconsistent testimony created a reasonable doubt.

Smith was found not guilty of all charges.