The defendant, facing drug trafficking and criminal organization charges, brought a mid-trial application for a stay of proceedings or exclusion of wiretap evidence, alleging a breach of Crown disclosure obligations under Stinchcombe and ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.
The issue concerned whether Monitor Post Reports (MPRs) alone constituted sufficient disclosure of wiretap intercepts, or if all audio recordings were required, and whether the disclosure method was misleading.
The court found that while the Crown did not wilfully breach its obligations, the disclosure method was insufficient due to a lack of clear explanation regarding the relationship between the MPRs and the disclosed audio recordings.
Despite some lack of diligence by defence counsel, the court determined that the defendant's trial fairness rights were compromised.
Given the extensive time required for the defence to review the newly disclosed audio recordings and the judge's impending compulsory retirement, an adjournment was deemed impractical.
The court granted a mistrial, allowing for a new trial where previous pretrial decisions and admitted evidence could be incorporated.
