Stephane Marinier

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 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.

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.

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 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.