Somboun Tsai

Police executed a search warrant using a "hard entry" at the defendant's home, seizing cocaine, phenacetin, and cash.

The defendant applied to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure due to hard entry) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found a serious s. 8 breach due to the officer's lack of understanding of the knock-and-announce rule and arbitrary decision-making.

The s. 10(b) breach was not found.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court excluded the evidence, leading to the defendant's acquittal on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

Sarah Nolan pleaded guilty to possession of 6.5 kilograms of cocaine and 29.74 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, while the defence proposed five to six years, both agreeing to a 10-month reduction for Charter breaches.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity and nature of the drugs and the duration of involvement, alongside significant mitigating factors such as Nolan's first offender status, vulnerability due to cognitive deficits, guilty plea, remorse, and extensive rehabilitation efforts.

A global sentence of six years was deemed appropriate, reduced to five years and two months (62 months) after the agreed-upon reduction.

The sentence included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.

The accused was charged with possessing and transferring firearms, and possessing proceeds of crime, following an undercover police operation.

The Crown alleged the accused was the supplier of firearms sold by a co-actor to an undercover officer.

The court admitted various pieces of evidence, including cross-count similar fact evidence, adoptive admissions, and hearsay statements under the co-actors' exception.

However, applying the standard for circumstantial evidence, the court found that while the evidence was highly suspicious, it supported other reasonable inferences, such as mere association or involvement in other criminality.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

This ruling addresses an application by Ramin Rayegan-Tafreshi for leave to cross-examine affiants of Information to Obtain (ITO) documents related to wiretap authorizations and a general warrant.

The applicant sought to challenge the investigative necessity for the initial wiretap authorization and the reasonable grounds for the general warrant.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant regarding the wiretap's investigative necessity, finding that the ITO contained conclusory and potentially misleading statements about alternative investigative techniques.

However, the court denied leave to cross-examine the affiant regarding the general warrant, concluding that the applicant's challenge was a facial attack on the warrant's validity that could be addressed through legal argument without cross-examination.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after police found 19.07 grams of heroin in a safe inside an apartment he frequented.

The accused testified that he had obtained the safe for a friend to secure her belongings and did not know it contained heroin.

The friend testified and corroborated his account, admitting the heroin was hers.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the defence witnesses credible and their explanations reasonable, raising a reasonable doubt as to the accused's knowledge and possession of the drugs.

The accused was found not guilty.

Damion Stewart, charged with possession of fentanyl for trafficking, brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude evidence seized from his car and person.

He argued infringements of ss. 8 and 9, asserting lack of grounds for investigative detention, a de facto arrest without reasonable and probable grounds, and an unreasonable search.

The court found reasonable suspicion for investigative detention, and that the manner of detention and search were justified by officer safety concerns, particularly due to non-compliance and observed reaching under the seat.

The application was dismissed.

Antony Black was charged with drug-related offenses, obstruction, and probation breach.

He sought to exclude drug evidence obtained via a strip search, alleging Charter violations (ss. 7, 8, 10(b), 12) during his arrest and search.

The court found a s. 10(b) violation for delayed right to counsel and a s. 8 violation for an unlawful vehicle search.

However, it determined there was no sufficient causal, contextual, or temporal connection between these violations and the drug evidence from the strip search to engage s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Even if engaged, the violations were minor or remedied by the Crown not relying on the vehicle search evidence.

The strip search itself was found to be lawful and conducted reasonably despite the use of force due to the accused's resistance.

Consequently, the drug evidence was admissible, and the accused was found guilty of all charges.

Massud Nawabi was convicted by a jury of importing 4.04 kilograms of cocaine.

The court addressed two factual issues for sentencing: continuity of the cocaine and its total weight/purity.

The court found continuity proven for the entire 4.04 kg despite an unsealed package incident, and affirmed that weight is not adjusted for purity.

Considering general deterrence as the overriding factor for cocaine importation, and mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record and remorse, the court imposed a sentence of seven years in custody, along with ancillary orders for DNA samples and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

A recommendation was made for the sentence to be served in Quebec.

The defendant was charged with two counts under section 126 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for counselling and aiding or abetting individuals to misrepresent material facts to Canadian immigration authorities.

The defendant purchased plane tickets for two individuals from Barbados and instructed them to misrepresent their relationship to him upon arrival in Canada.

Both individuals subsequently made successful refugee claims.

After the Crown closed its case, the defendant moved for a directed verdict.

The court granted the motion and dismissed all charges, finding that the Crown failed to establish that the misrepresentations could have induced an error in the administration of the Act.

The court held that the misrepresentation regarding the nature of the relationship was immaterial to admissibility as either a visitor or refugee claimant, and that the Crown's evidence did not support a connection between the misrepresentation and any error in the administration of the Act.