S. Antoniani

The applicant, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized from his vehicle pursuant to a search warrant.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds and relied on an uncorroborated confidential informant tip.

He also argued the indictment violated the single transaction rule under s. 581 of the Criminal Code by combining drugs seized from his person upon arrest with drugs later seized from his vehicle.

The court dismissed the application, finding the ITO contained sufficient corroborated grounds to justify the warrant.

The court also held that the single transaction rule was not violated, as the seizures occurred on the same day and formed part of a continuous series of acts.

The accused was convicted at trial of importing hypophosphorous acid, a Schedule VI controlled substance, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of six months or a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The defence sought a discharge with an enhanced victim fine surcharge.

The court found that the accused imported the acid for legitimate purposes (as a cleaner for tire rims) but was wilfully blind to its status as a controlled substance.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with probation, community service, and an enhanced victim fine surcharge, finding that a custodial sentence was not necessary given the accused's lack of criminal record, prosocial behaviour, and the legitimate intended use of the substance.

The offender was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of probation after fleeing from police during a traffic stop.

He was found with 2.5 ounces of cocaine and had a significant criminal record including three prior convictions for the same offence.

The court emphasized specific and general deterrence, sentencing the offender to 30 months in custody for the drug offence and 90 days concurrent for the breach of probation.

The defendant was initially charged with 120 offences contrary to the Income Tax Act.

After the Crown elected to proceed summarily and withdrew two counts, the defendant pleaded guilty to 78 counts involving false or deceptive statements in income tax returns and fraudulent claims for refunds.

The defendant had operated a side business preparing tax returns for clients, providing fraudulent charitable donation receipts and false employment expense claims, resulting in approximately $70,365.55 in unpaid federal taxes.

The court dismissed the defendant's application for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process and Charter violations.

The defendant was sentenced to concurrent conditional sentences of imprisonment for one year to be served in the community, plus fines totalling $70,365.55 (100% of taxes evaded).

Conditions included home confinement for the first eight months and prohibition from tax preparation work or church volunteer positions involving financial authority.

The accused brought a pretrial application to exclude evidence of crack cocaine seized from a vehicle he was driving, alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

After being pulled over for speeding, the accused fled the scene on foot and was later arrested.

The police towed the vehicle as abandoned under the Highway Traffic Act and discovered drugs during an inventory search.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused abandoned any reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle by fleeing, and that the police lawfully impounded and searched the vehicle.

The accused was charged with production of marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered a large commercial grow operation in a residence.

The prosecution relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance showing the accused attending the premises multiple times and possessing keys to the residence.

The defence argued the accused merely attended the home to check on a tenant and had no knowledge of the grow operation.

The court rejected the defence evidence as implausible and found that the accused had knowledge and a measure of control over the premises, supporting constructive possession and party liability for production.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The applicant, charged with drug offences and theft of electricity related to a marijuana grow operation, sought to exclude house keys seized by police during his arrest outside the residence.

The applicant argued the keys were obtained through an unlawful arrest and warrantless search, breaching his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found that the applicant had abandoned the keys by tossing them onto the lawn upon seeing the police, meaning no search occurred and no s. 8 rights were violated.

The court further held that even if the arrest was arbitrary and a breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the police conduct was not deliberate and the evidence was highly reliable real evidence essential to the prosecution.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.