Sophia Newbould

The accused were charged with possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of hydromorphone, following a police raid on a residence.

The court found the male accused guilty of possessing the methamphetamine and fentanyl, as circumstantial evidence linked him to the drugs found in the bathroom.

The female accused was acquitted of those charges but found guilty of simple possession of hydromorphone based on her admission to police regarding spoons containing morphine found in a bedroom.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging an arbitrary arrest contrary to s. 9 of the Charter after police stopped a vehicle targeting another suspect and arrested the applicant passenger without any prior information or reasonable grounds.

The court found that the arresting officers had no subjective or objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant, whose only connection was being a passenger in a vehicle driven by the target of a drug investigation.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court held the Charter breach was serious and had a significant impact on the accused’s liberty and privacy interests.

Although the drug evidence was reliable and central to the prosecution, the seriousness of the violation required exclusion.

With the evidence excluded, the Crown called no further evidence and an acquittal was entered.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of their s. 8 and s. 9 rights during a drug trafficking investigation.

The police arrested one accused based on confidential informant tips and surveillance, and subsequently conducted a warrantless 'clearing search' of the accused's residence before obtaining a search warrant.

The court found the arrest was lawful and based on reasonable and probable grounds.

However, the court held the warrantless 'clearing search' violated s. 8 of the Charter as there were no exigent circumstances.

Despite the s. 8 breach, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach was not serious, the police acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable and crucial to the prosecution.

The applications were dismissed.