S. Agbakwa

The applicants, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a Charter motion alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by a search of a residence based on a warrant obtained using confidential informant information.

The court found that the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient credibility regarding the informants, resulting in a s. 8 breach.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the seized evidence (fentanyl, cocaine, and a firearm) under s. 24(2), emphasizing society's strong interest in adjudicating serious offences on their merits.

The accused was found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime after selling crack cocaine to an undercover officer.

The offences occurred in 2011, prior to amendments restricting conditional sentences.

The court noted the accused's positive rehabilitation, lack of criminal record, and a prior ruling granting a significant sentence reduction due to Charter breaches.

A six-month conditional sentence was imposed.

The accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of possession of proceeds of crime arising from undercover drug purchases.

The defence sought a stay of proceedings based on lost evidence relating to the undercover officer’s cell phone number and related records.

The court held that although the police failed to properly record and preserve the phone number, the loss did not result in irremediable prejudice or justify a stay under the principles governing lost evidence and abuse of process.

The identification evidence, including two face‑to‑face drug transactions, a photographic lineup, and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the apartment associated with the dealer, was sufficient to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt despite flaws in the lineup procedure.

The accused brought a third party records application seeking cellphone records associated with a number subscribed to by the complainant.

The defence argued the records could confirm or refute alleged post‑incident communication between the complainant and the accused, relevant to credibility and full answer and defence.

Applying the two‑stage framework under ss. 278.3 and 278.5 of the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence in Mills and O’Connor, the court considered likely relevance, privacy interests, and the probative value of the requested records.

The court held that the accused met the threshold of likely relevance, noting the limited but potentially probative timeframe and the relatively lower privacy interest in call‑log records compared to counselling records.

The records were ordered produced to the court for judicial review, with further submissions scheduled on whether disclosure to the defence should follow.