Roderick W.A. Sonley

The applicant, charged with conspiracy and drug trafficking offences following a complex police investigation, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 60 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and transitional provisions, deducting periods of defence waiver and delay caused by discrete exceptional events, including a mistrial and a change of lead counsel.

The court concluded that the remaining delay was justified by the exceptional complexity of the case and the parties' reasonable reliance on the previous Morin framework.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with trafficking in heroin, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a declaration that sections 185 and 186 of the Criminal Code are unconstitutional.

The applicant argued that the 'may assist' standard for targeting an individual's private communications for interception violates section 8 of the Charter, which requires a reasonable and probable cause standard.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was bound by Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence that upheld the constitutional validity of the Part VI wiretap regime and the 'may assist' criteria.

The accused faced a 60-count indictment following 'Project A-Wire', an RCMP investigation into drug trafficking, weapons, proceeds of crime, extortion, and criminal interest rates.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications, surveillance, and physical evidence seized from multiple locations, including a stash apartment, a bar, and the accused's residence.

The court found the accused guilty of conspiring to traffic in cocaine, marijuana, and hashish, and of leading a criminal organization.

The accused was also convicted of possessing prohibited and restricted firearms, possessing proceeds of crime, extortion, and entering into agreements to receive interest at a criminal rate.

The accused was acquitted of receiving payments at a criminal interest rate and one count of extortion.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion alleging breaches of s. 8 of the Charter arising from a warrantless search of his iPhone by CBSA officers at an airport upon re‑entry into Canada.

The defence sought exclusion of the phone contents, subsequent wiretap authorizations, and evidence obtained through search warrants, arguing the border search was a pretext for a police investigation and that the authorizations lacked investigative necessity.

The court held that a cell phone constitutes “goods” under the Customs Act and that CBSA officers are authorized to conduct routine border searches of such goods without prior grounds.

The search was characterized as a first‑category routine border search under R. v. Simmons and therefore reasonable.

Even if a breach had occurred, exclusion under s. 24(2) was not warranted because the state conduct was not serious and the evidence was central to the prosecution.