Sabrina Montefiore

The decision addresses a Charter application by Brandon Abrams regarding the timing of detention and the police obligation to hold off investigation until section 10(b) of the Charter is fully implemented.

The court finds that Abrams was not detained prior to his formal arrest, but that his section 10(b) rights were breached when police questioned him about new charges before he had a renewed opportunity to consult counsel.

The court excludes identity documents from evidence but admits drugs, an airsoft pistol, and drug paraphernalia.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of the retrial was 46 months.

After deducting 10.8 months of defence delay and 8.2 months of discrete exceptional delay, the net delay was 27 months.

As this fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters established in Jordan, the court found the delay was reasonable and dismissed the application.

The accused, Inderdip Sahota, brought an application for a stay of proceedings or exclusion of drug and proceeds of crime evidence, alleging breaches of Charter sections 7, 8, and 10(b) and abuse of process by police during an investigation and search.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, finding insufficient evidence to meet the "clearest of cases" standard.

The court also dismissed the application for exclusion of evidence related to the search of the condo unit and pat-down, finding no sufficient causal, temporal, or contextual connection to the trafficked drugs.

However, the court found a breach of the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) due to a six-hour delay in facilitating access to a lawyer.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that admitting the evidence, despite the s. 10(b) breach, would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the seriousness of the drug trafficking offence and the lack of bad faith by police.

The drugs, proceeds, and cell phones were ordered admitted for trial.

The defendants were charged with importing cocaine after a controlled delivery of a package from Colombia.

The package contained cocaine hidden inside metal grinding wheels.

One defendant accepted the package at his residence, while the other was observed driving nearby in apparent counter-surveillance.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either defendant knew the package contained imported cocaine.

Both defendants were found not guilty.

Patricia Morgan was charged with importing cocaine.

A voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of statements she made to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers.

The court excluded most statements made to CBSA officers due to unreliable recording and lack of context, but admitted the audio/video recorded statement made to an RCMP officer, finding it voluntary and not induced by promises of release or passport return.

The accused, a 24-year-old Antiguan national, pled guilty to importing 4,322 grams of cocaine into Canada concealed in false-bottomed suitcases.

She travelled with her three-year-old daughter and co-accused Teesha Thomas, who was also carrying cocaine.

The accused was arrested at the border and has been in pre-trial detention since May 9, 2015.

The Crown sought seven years imprisonment; the defence sought five years.

The court imposed a sentence of 66 months (5.5 years) imprisonment, with credit for 223 days of pre-trial detention at an enhanced rate, resulting in a further 55 months to be served.

The court also imposed a DNA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a $200 victim fine surcharge payable within two years.

Sentencing following jury convictions for possession of prohibited substances and possession of MDMA/methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police stopped the accused for Highway Traffic Act concerns and discovered 1,077 ecstasy pills with an estimated street value between approximately $10,770 and $21,540, along with smaller quantities of other drugs.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record including drug offences, breaches of court orders, and domestic assaults, and had demonstrated poor compliance with community supervision.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were paramount in serious trafficking offences and that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the offender’s history and the quantity of drugs involved.

A global penitentiary sentence of 2.5 years was imposed with ancillary DNA and forfeiture orders.

The accused brought a late Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained following a Highway Traffic Act roadside stop, alleging violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application was served 11 days before trial rather than the 30 days required under the Criminal Proceedings Rules for the Superior Court of Justice.

The court refused to abridge the notice period, finding the application should have been brought much earlier and that the alleged factual basis for the Charter challenge emerged only on the eve of trial without supporting evidence.

The court further held there was no air of reality to the proposed Charter claim and noted the accused’s own position that the vehicle was not his undermined any reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Charter application was therefore not permitted to proceed.

During a jury trial, the accused brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge of possession of a prohibited weapon, alleged to be a push‑dagger concealed within a cane‑sword.

The court considered whether the Crown had adduced any evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find that the weapon was commonly known as a push‑dagger under the relevant Criminal Code regulations.

The Crown relied on testimony from police officers who lacked expertise in weaponry and did not call expert evidence to establish the definitional elements of a push‑dagger or to address the statutory exclusion for an aboriginal ulu knife.

The court held that the absence of evidence on these essential definitional elements created a fatal evidentiary gap.

As a result, there was no evidential basis upon which the jury could convict on the charge.

The Crown brought a voir dire seeking a ruling that several statements made by the accused during a traffic stop were voluntary and admissible.

The accused argued the statements were compelled and obtained in breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter once the police questioning shifted from Highway Traffic Act compliance to a criminal drug investigation.

The court held that the initial statements relating to vehicle ownership and the first response regarding illegal items were voluntary and admissible because they occurred during a lawful traffic stop and before the investigative focus changed.

However, the final statement admitting additional drugs was obtained after the accused should have been cautioned and informed of the right to counsel, and was therefore excluded.

Despite the Charter breach, the physical evidence seized from the vehicle was admitted under the Grant analysis because it would have been inevitably discovered during vehicle impoundment and inventory.

The accused, a chartered accountant, pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 for his role in a large-scale tax evasion scheme involving false personal income tax returns and fraudulent charitable donation receipts.

Over six years (2003-2008), the accused prepared 487 false returns for numerous clients, resulting in false deduction claims totalling $3,674,000 and unpaid taxes of $1,045,111.21.

The accused received approximately $94,000 in compensation.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day, while the Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three to five years.

The court imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence with a $100,000 fine.