Roderick W. A. Sonley

The applicant, Awso Peshdary, facing terrorism charges, brought applications under s. 7 of the Charter and s. 38.14 of the Canada Evidence Act, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence due to the destruction of notes by a key Crown witness (A.M.), a former CSIS human source.

As part of these applications, Peshdary sought disclosure of various CSIS documents, including policies on human source handling, drafts of an affidavit from a CSIS employee ('John'), and materials related to A.M.'s handler.

The court granted disclosure for CSIS policies related to human source safety and note-taking, finding them relevant to the Charter application concerning the right to make full answer and defence.

However, it denied disclosure for draft affidavits and handler-related materials, citing litigation privilege and lack of likely relevance, or prior Federal Court rulings on privilege.

The applicants brought a motion challenging the validity of three general warrants (dated June 30, August 13, and October 8, 2015) authorizing video surveillance and covert entries at 691 Bank Street in Ottawa as part of Project Step, a drug trafficking investigation.

The central issue was whether an Ontario Court of Justice judge had jurisdiction to authorize video surveillance under section 487.01(4) of the Criminal Code, or whether such authorization required a Superior Court of Justice judge.

The court found that the applicants had standing to challenge the warrants based on a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway, albeit attenuated.

The court determined that video surveillance warrants must be signed by a Superior Court judge, not an Ontario Court of Justice judge, rendering the June 30 warrant invalid.

However, the court severed the covert entry portion of the June 30 warrant, which remained valid.

The court also quashed the portions of the August 13 and October 8 warrants authorizing entries into unit C, as the information supporting those entries was derived from the unlawful hallway surveillance.

Despite these findings, the court admitted all evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the good faith conduct of police and the attenuated privacy interests involved.

The applicant sought an order to excise information obtained through a Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act authorization, which was subsequently used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to secure a Criminal Code authorization for intercepting private communications.

The applicant alleged infringements of Charter s. 8 rights and the right to full answer and defence.

The court determined that the CSIS Act warrant met the minimum criteria for a lawful search, and the information derived from it did not violate s. 8.

Furthermore, the applicant's right to full answer and defence was not denied, as substantial disclosure of source documents related to the CSIS Act warrant had been obtained through prior third-party records applications.

Consequently, the application to excise the information was denied.

The offender pleaded guilty to fraud against the Bank of Nova Scotia involving multiple mortgages obtained with false employment and income documentation totalling $1.74 million, charging criminal interest rates to two individuals, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, consisting of two years for fraud, three months consecutive for each criminal interest rate offence, and one year concurrent for proceeds of crime.

Additionally, fines in lieu of forfeiture totalling $510,488 were imposed.

The corporation was sentenced to fines totalling $325,000.

The applicant, Awso Peshdary, sought disclosure of source documents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) related to a 2012 CSIS Act warrant, renewing a previous request based on an alleged material change in circumstances following a Federal Court decision upholding the warrant.

CSIS and the Federal Crown opposed, arguing that the validity of the warrant had been decided by the Federal Court, precluding further challenge, and that no material change justified revisiting the prior disclosure denial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the renewed request constituted a collateral attack and an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the warrant's validity in a different forum after a final determination by the Federal Court.

The accused, David John Mayne Bullen, faced seven charges related to cocaine trafficking and conspiracy, including instructing an offence for a criminal organization and historical trafficking charges.

The trial was the second for the accused, following a mistrial.

The Crown relied on evidence from "Project Mayday" and "Project Adelaide," involving police surveillance and intercepted communications.

The Defence admitted guilt for a smaller conspiracy involving the first three police agent cocaine purchases but disputed the larger conspiracy and criminal organization charges.

The court applied the Carter analysis for co-conspirator hearsay and found the accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking (Counts #1, #2, #3) related to the main conspiracy and the first three police agent buys.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of directing a criminal organization (Count #4) and the historical trafficking charges (Counts #5, #6, #7), citing insufficient evidence for a criminal organization and reliability issues with the police agent's testimony for the historical charges.

The accused, a leading expert in animal brucellosis employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), pleaded guilty to one count of breach of trust and ten regulatory offences.

The breach of trust involved his commercialization of brucellosis diagnostic test kits using intellectual property owned by the CFIA through a company established in China from 2006 to 2010.

The regulatory offences arose from his arrest on October 24, 2012, when he was found attempting to board a flight to China with 17 vials of brucella bacteria improperly packaged in his carry-on luggage.

The court imposed a two-year custodial sentence, rejecting the defence's request for a conditional sentence despite the accused's exemplary background, advanced age, serious medical conditions, and low risk of recidivism.

The court found that general deterrence and denunciation were the predominant sentencing principles required by the legislative objectives of the Human Pathogens and Toxins Act and the Export and Import Permits Act.

The Applicant, Awso Peshdary, facing terrorism-related charges, sought production of materials from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) as a third-party records holder.

The request pertained to two main areas: (1) reliability assessments and financial arrangements of Abdullah Milton, a paid CSIS asset and later police agent whose credibility was a material issue, and (2) materials related to a CSIS warrant obtained against Peshdary, used to support a subsequent RCMP judicial authorization.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor test for third-party disclosure.

It found that materials related to Milton's reliability and financial arrangements met the "likely relevance" test for trial issues and ordered their disclosure to the court for review.

However, for the CSIS warrant materials, the court distinguished between facial and sub-facial challenges to judicial authorizations, applying the narrower Garofoli test as clarified by World Bank Group v. Wallace.

It concluded that the applicant had not met the test for likely relevance for the CSIS warrant materials, as the purpose was to challenge the admissibility of evidence rather than directly bear on guilt or innocence.

The court also ordered disclosure of any notes Milton took of his interactions with Peshdary.

The three accused, Ashton Larmond, Carlos Larmond, and Suliman Mohamed, pleaded guilty to various terrorism-related offences and other charges.

Ashton Larmond pleaded guilty to knowingly instructing persons to enhance terrorist activity, Carlos Larmond to attempting to leave Canada for terrorist activity, and Suliman Mohamed to conspiring to enhance a terrorist group's ability.

The Larmond brothers also pleaded guilty to offences committed in custody, including threats to correctional officers and inmates, and unlawful communication.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions, emphasizing the gravity of "home grown" terrorism and the importance of denunciation and deterrence.

The defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict acquitting him of four counts related to cocaine trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including numerical text messages sent from the defendant's phone to a co-accused's phone.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, considering whether the circumstantial evidence was reasonably capable of supporting the inferences the Crown asked the jury to draw.

The court found there was some direct and circumstantial evidence to support the inference that the defendant was a party to an agreement to sell cocaine, and therefore dismissed the motion.

During a criminal trial for drug trafficking offences involving cocaine and cannabis, the Crown sought to qualify an RCMP officer as an expert to provide opinion evidence regarding drug trafficking indicators, drug jargon, and related matters.

The defence objected, arguing the proposed evidence lacked relevance and necessity and that the witness lacked independence due to police bias.

Applying the test for expert evidence in R. v. Mohan, the court held that some proposed opinions were relevant and necessary to assist the jury, including opinions regarding the level of trafficking indicated by seized items and the use of drug-related jargon.

However, opinions concerning cocaine purity, the role of weapons in trafficking, and evidence relating to hashish or trafficking hierarchies were excluded as irrelevant or unnecessary.

The officer was qualified to give expert opinion evidence only on limited issues.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of statements made to police following arrest during a large-scale drug trafficking investigation.

He argued that police failed to properly inform him of the reasons for his detention under s. 10(a) of the Charter and that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) was infringed, rendering his waiver invalid.

The court found that advising the applicant he was being arrested for drug trafficking and conspiracy to traffic drugs sufficiently informed him of the nature of his jeopardy.

The court further held that the applicant validly waived his right to counsel and later spoke with counsel before a subsequent interrogation.

Although additional details about the investigation were provided several hours after arrest, any delay was minor in context and did not justify exclusion of the statements under s. 24(2).

Addendum to reasons for decision correcting the allocation of sentence between offences in a criminal matter.

The court confirmed that the amended warrant of committal properly reflected the distribution of the total sentence across the offences.

The total custodial sentence remained seven years after applying four years of pre‑sentence custody credit.

The addendum clarified that the amended warrant accurately corresponds with the earlier reasons for decision.