Stéphane Marinier

The applicant, a commercial truck driver charged with importing cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

He alleged multiple violations of his ss. 7, 8, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights during a secondary examination at the Ambassador Bridge.

The court found that border officers violated the applicant's s. 8 rights by conducting a highly degrading strip search without reasonable and probable grounds or supervisor authorization.

The court also found violations of ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b), as officers detained and questioned the applicant without advising him of the reasons for detention or his right to counsel, delayed facilitating his right to counsel, and failed to hold off questioning and the strip search until he had a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel.

Concluding that the cumulative violations were egregious and indicative of systemic training and policy failures within the CBSA, the court held that a stay of proceedings was the only appropriate remedy to dissociate the justice system from the impugned conduct.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings granted to the respondent, Christopher Musclow, for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The stay was based on an alleged breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 59.5 months, with 18.5 months attributed to defence delay and 21 months to exceptional circumstances (illness of a key police witness), leaving a net delay of 20 months, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application judge, however, found the delay unreasonable by considering the total delay, including the exceptional circumstances, when assessing if the case took "markedly longer than it reasonably should have." The Court of Appeal found this approach erroneous, clarifying that exceptional circumstances, once deducted, should not be reconsidered in the below-ceiling analysis.

The appeal was allowed, and the stay was set aside.

This endorsement addresses a pre-trial motion concerning the translation of approximately 8300 pages of English-language source documents, including technical reports from a cell phone search, for a self-represented francophone accused with limited English proficiency.

The Crown argued that consecutive interpretation would suffice, while the accused demanded full translation.

The court, emphasizing the accused's linguistic rights under the Charter and his self-represented status, ordered the Crown to translate all source documents and expert reports necessary for the defence.

The resulting adjournment of the trial was attributed to the accused due to his renunciation of previous concessions made by his former counsel.

The self-represented accused applied for a change of venue from Sarnia to Ottawa, arguing that Sarnia lacked a sufficient francophone population for a French jury panel, lacked bilingual court staff, and that Ottawa would be more convenient for his prospective counsel based in Montreal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that census data showed a sufficient bilingual population in Lambton County, the provincial government confirmed bilingual staff would be available, and the convenience of counsel or the accused alone is insufficient to displace the strong presumption that a trial should be held where the offence occurred.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating the total delay and subtracting periods attributable to the defence, including waived delays.

The net delay was found to be below the Jordan ceiling, leading to a presumption of reasonableness.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that the case took longer than it should have.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, a head dispatcher for a trucking company, was charged with importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine after 50 bricks of cocaine were found hidden in a shipment of plastic resin at the Canadian border.

The accused denied knowledge of the conspiracy, claiming he was unaware the shipment had been diverted to avoid a police search in Texas and that a co-worker had arranged the falsified customs documents.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible, finding that his actions—including maintaining a cover story, rerouting the shipment, and sending falsified documents—provided overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his knowledge and participation.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant, a commercial truck driver, was referred to a secondary examination at a border crossing due to a CBSA 'drug lookout'.

During the examination, border officers discovered methamphetamine and cash in his truck.

The applicant brought a motion alleging violations of his Charter rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), arguing that the lookout made him a specific target of a criminal investigation, thereby triggering his Charter rights upon arrival.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the questioning and search were routine border procedures authorized by the Customs Act, and the applicant was not detained for Charter purposes until the drugs were actually discovered.

The appellant, David Réal Arsenault, appealed his conviction for marijuana production and possession for trafficking, and his sentence.

He raised two grounds: the trial judge's failure to assist him as a self-represented litigant and to rule on a constitutional motion regarding a search warrant, and the violation of his linguistic rights by forcing him to proceed without French-speaking counsel.

The Crown conceded the first ground, agreeing to a new trial and undertaking to seek a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on this basis, quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

Regarding the linguistic rights argument, the Court found that the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment was a reasonable exercise of discretion, as the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in securing French-speaking counsel over a six-year period.

The Court also found the appellant's new evidence on this point to lack credibility.

The accused, a commercial truck driver, was charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after 30 kilograms of cocaine were found in his trailer at the Canada-US border.

The accused admitted to knowingly bringing the cocaine into Canada but raised the defences of duress and innocent possession.

The court rejected the defence of duress, finding that the accused did not reasonably believe the alleged threats, had safe avenues of escape, and acted for financial gain.

The court also rejected the defence of innocent possession, as the accused exercised control over the drugs for several days.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

During a criminal trial for importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking, a voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of evidence from a detector dog and an ion scan machine.

The accused, a commercial truck driver, was found with 30 kilograms of cocaine in his trailer at a border crossing.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence that a detector dog indicated the presence of a target odour on a suitcase in the truck's cab, and that an ion scan of the suitcase tested positive for cocaine residue.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and held that the detector dog evidence was admissible only for the limited purpose of narrative to explain why the ion scan was conducted, due to its prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value.

The court further held that the ion scan evidence was admissible but would be given very little weight due to the possibility of false positives and its inability to determine when or how the residue was deposited.

The accused, a commercial truck driver, was charged with importing cocaine after 30 kilograms of cocaine were found in his trailer at a secondary inspection site near the border.

At the close of the Crown's case, the accused brought a motion for a directed verdict, arguing that the offence of importation was not complete because he had not cleared customs with the contraband.

The court dismissed the motion, applying jurisprudence to find that the offence of importing is legally complete as soon as an accused crosses the border into Canada with contraband, even if it is not factually complete until customs is cleared.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking arising from the discovery of a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory in Scarborough containing approximately 150 kilograms of drugs with a street value of $12 million.

The appellant challenged the verdicts as unreasonable, inconsistent with his acquittal on production charges, and inconsistent with the trial judge's finding that he lacked standing under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence of 8 years as manifestly unfit and sought a 12-year sentence with delayed parole eligibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

A company pleaded guilty to an offence under s. 148(2) of the Canada Labour Code where injury was caused.

An untrained co-op student and part-time employee operated a crane, resulting in a steel beam falling and crushing a worker's leg.

The worker was off work for two years and unable to resume his prior duties.

The Crown and defendant jointly submitted a fine of $70,000, which the court accepted as appropriate given the early guilty plea, cooperation with investigation, remedial safety measures undertaken, the company's 60-year history of workplace safety, and demonstrated financial hardship.

The applicant sought disclosure of the audio and transcript of an anonymous 911 call reporting a man with a handgun in a parking lot.

The Crown opposed disclosure, arguing the caller was protected by confidential informant privilege.

After reviewing the audio ex parte, the court applied the test for informant privilege and found that the 911 dispatcher's reassuring comments constituted an implicit promise of confidentiality, and the caller's conduct indicated a desire to remain anonymous.

The court concluded the call was protected by informant privilege and dismissed the application for disclosure.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred by not treating the admission of a BlackBerry text as late disclosure and by erroneously referring to a witness as an alibi witness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the issue was admissibility, not late disclosure, and the trial judge's rejection of the witness's evidence was well-founded.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's lengthy criminal record.

The Crown appealed the sentence of six years imposed on the respondent for trafficking methamphetamine and marihuana, as well as the sentencing judge's refusal to impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the length of imprisonment, finding the sentence low but not warranting interference.

However, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Lavigne, the Court held the sentencing judge erred by considering the respondent's inability to pay when deciding whether to impose a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The Court allowed the appeal on this issue, imposed a fine of $37,100, and remanded the matter to determine the time limit for payment.

The 68-year-old appellant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The sentencing judge rejected a joint submission for a conditional sentence of two years less a day, citing a lack of community resources to supervise the sentence, and imposed 18 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by relying on his own knowledge of community resources without a record and by expecting surveillance officers to enforce the sentence.

The appeal was allowed and a 14-month conditional sentence was imposed.