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.