S. Aujla

The three accused faced various charges relating to the importation of 29 kilograms of heroin and 600 grams of opium concealed in a shipping container of marble stone.

At the close of the Crown's case, all three accused brought motions for directed verdicts.

The court dismissed the motions brought by two of the accused, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer their knowledge and participation in the drug importation and trafficking scheme.

However, the court granted the motion for the third accused, the consignee of the shipment, finding no evidence reasonably capable of supporting an inference that he knew about the drugs, and entered not guilty verdicts on his charges.

The accused applied to exclude evidence of a marihuana grow operation discovered during a police search of his residence, alleging a violation of his rights under s. 8 of the Charter.

Police responded to a 911 call regarding a male and female fighting.

Upon arrival, the officer was told by a female occupant that her special needs son had made the call while playing with the phone.

The officer conducted a safety sweep of the residence to ensure all occupants were accounted for and safe, discovering marihuana plants in plain view in the furnace room.

The court found the safety sweep was objectively reasonable given the nature of the priority call and the lack of precise information, concluding there was no s. 8 breach.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought to admit statements allegedly made by the accused while detained at an airport under the Customs Act after officers suspected drug smuggling.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in oppressive circumstances.

The court held the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt due to the absence of reliable recordings, incomplete officer notes, and interrogation conditions including prolonged detention, lack of sleep, and uncomfortable conditions.

These factors undermined the reliability and context of the alleged admissions.

The impugned statements were ruled inadmissible.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 406 grams of cocaine after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica.

At sentencing, the defence argued for mitigation based on alleged compulsion falling short of duress and repeated strip searches conducted by law enforcement.

The court rejected the claim of compulsion, finding the offender not credible and concluding she participated willingly for personal gain.

However, the court found that a second strip search conducted by police after arrest violated s. 8 of the Charter because it was carried out as a matter of routine policy without reasonable grounds.

Applying sentencing principles and the range established in appellate jurisprudence, the court reduced the otherwise fit sentence to reflect the police misconduct.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on charges of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The applicant argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded her jurisdiction because there was no evidence that he knew the shipment he handled contained heroin or any controlled substance.

The court reviewed the governing test under s. 548 of the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence in Shephard, Arcuri, and related authorities, emphasizing the highly deferential standard applicable on certiorari review of committal decisions.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including phone intercepts, coordinated activity with a co‑accused, and handling of the shipment, was capable of supporting an inference of knowledge if believed.

As some evidence existed on the essential element of knowledge, the preliminary inquiry judge acted within jurisdiction and the committal could not be disturbed.