Stephen R. Dawson

The appellant appealed his conviction on several drug trafficking charges arising from Project Dolphin, a joint forces investigation into drug trafficking in Thunder Bay.

The central issue concerned the admissibility of evidence extracted from the appellant's Blackberry device, which was seized incident to an arrest that was later found to be arbitrary.

The trial judge found Charter breaches but admitted the evidence under section 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the Grant framework for admissibility of constitutionally-tainted evidence.

The court also upheld the admission of hearsay evidence from a deceased co-conspirator and evidence from a co-conspirator's guilty plea under the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The offender pleaded guilty to producing marijuana after police found 29 plants in his home, which he shared with his 13-year-old daughter.

He grew the marijuana for personal use to manage chronic pain and sold surplus to friends.

The Crown initially sought a mandatory minimum sentence of six months but withdrew its notice, rendering a constitutional challenge moot.

The court considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and positive rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a suspended sentence and 18 months of probation.

The applicant pleaded guilty to producing marijuana and cannabis resin.

The Crown initially sought a mandatory minimum sentence but later withdrew its notice, rendering the applicant's constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum provision moot.

The applicant argued the court should still hear the challenge based on the Borowski principles.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot challenge, noting that a similar constitutional issue was already under appellate review, the provision did not create an inflationary floor for sentencing, and hearing the application would unduly consume judicial resources.

The applicant sought an order to release seized funds for legal fees and a declaration that s. 462.37(3) of the Criminal Code violates Charter rights if applied to such fees, creating a conflict of interest for counsel.

The Crown resisted, arguing lack of jurisdiction and prematurity for the constitutional issue.

The court found jurisdiction to release the funds, distinguishing previous case law, and determined the applicant had no other means to pay.

However, the court dismissed the declaratory relief, deeming the constitutional question premature as several contingencies must occur before s. 462.37(3) could apply, and emphasized that an offender truly unable to pay a fine in lieu of forfeiture would not face incarceration.

Samuel Robinson, found guilty of drug possession and possession for trafficking, challenged the constitutionality of the two-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 5(3)(a)(ii)(A) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing it infringed sections 12 and 7 of the Charter.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate both on the facts of the case and in a reasonable hypothetical situation, thereby infringing section 12 of the Charter.

The question of justification under section 1 of the Charter was reserved for further consideration.

The defendant brought an application challenging the constitutionality of section 16 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which provides for forfeiture of offence-related property.

The defendant argued that the forfeiture provision was ultra vires Parliament, violated the Charter prohibition on double punishment, was overbroad, and constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

The defendant had pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for purposes of trafficking and simple possession of cocaine, and the Crown sought forfeiture of his pickup truck.

The court rejected all constitutional challenges and upheld the forfeiture provision as valid federal legislation within the criminal law power, as a distinct but related component of the sentencing process.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of the defendant's townhouse under section 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the defendant's guilty plea to production of marijuana.

The defendant operated a sophisticated grow operation with 303 plants in the residential property.

The court found the property was offence-related property but applied the proportionality test under section 19.1(3).

The court determined that full forfeiture would be disproportionate given the defendant's lack of criminal record, sole operation of the grow-op, and absence of organized crime involvement.

The court ordered partial forfeiture of 50 percent of the remaining equity after accounting for the defendant's father's interest in the property (the mortgage amount paid to prevent foreclosure).

Criminal appeal addressing admissibility of similar fact evidence tied to the accused's prior sexual assault conviction.

The Court accepted the dissenting appellate reasons and held the trial judge made no reviewable error in admitting the similar fact evidence.

The Court allowed the Crown's appeal, stayed count No. 1, and restored convictions on the remaining counts.