Surinder Singh Aujla

The applicants sought to exclude firearms and drug-related evidence, arguing that initial warrantless searches of their residence and subsequent searches conducted under warrants violated their section 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the broad "clearing search" of the entire residence, and a second search of a bedroom for firearms, were unreasonable.

It also determined that the subsequently issued search warrants were invalid because they relied on unlawfully obtained information and failed to meet *Lavallee* guidelines for law office searches.

Consequently, the court granted the applications, excluding all challenged evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the Charter breaches and their significant impact on the applicants' privacy interests, which outweighed the public interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused, Federico Jimenez-Martinez, was charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after driving into Canada with 18 kg of cocaine hidden in a spare tire.

He claimed duress due to threats from Mexican cartels.

The court acquitted him on the importation charge, finding insufficient evidence of intent to enter Canada.

However, the court found him guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, rejecting his duress defence.

The judge found the accused's account of being forced to transport the drugs unreasonable and concluded he was a knowing participant in a drug conspiracy, not acting under compulsion.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance, trafficking in methamphetamine, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He appealed both his convictions and sentence.

On conviction, he argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 10(b) Charter application, claiming police failed to ensure he understood his right to counsel and delayed access to duty counsel.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's finding that the appellant understood his rights and declined to consider the delay argument raised for the first time on appeal.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge improperly considered irrelevant aggravating factors, specifically his "higher involvement" in the drug hierarchy and discussions about fentanyl and firearms.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the evidence supported the appellant's higher role and that discussions of other serious criminal activities were relevant aggravating factors, even if the transfers did not materialize due to arrest.

The conviction appeal was dismissed, and while leave to appeal sentence was granted and fresh evidence admitted, the sentence appeal was also dismissed.

James Grant brought an application under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of criminal charges, alleging numerous Charter violations by state agents following his arrest for importing a controlled substance.

The alleged violations included unlawful detention, search, denial of counsel, excessive force during fingerprinting and strip searches, and judicial bias stemming from his "sovereign citizen" beliefs.

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breaches in the initial border search, fingerprinting incidents, or the courthouse flagpole incident.

It also determined that prison officials were justified in using force for a mandatory strip search in a custodial setting and that there was no reasonable apprehension of judicial bias or discrimination based on the applicant's beliefs.

The defendant, Natalia Safroni, was found guilty by a jury of importing opium.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine the quantity of opium for sentencing purposes, as the exact amount could not be scientifically quantified.

The court determined that a substantial, though not precisely quantifiable, amount of opium (approximately 3 kilograms of residue/solvent containing opium) was imported.

Considering mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record, youthfulness, and prospects for rehabilitation, and aggravating factors including the serious nature of importing a Schedule 1 narcotic and the significant quantity, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 2 years less pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA sample, and forfeiture of offence-related property were also issued.

The appellant pleaded guilty to four offences arising from a large-scale marijuana grow operation: production of marijuana, theft of electricity, theft of water, and injury to property.

The operation consisted of 864 plants with an estimated value between $324,000 and $518,000.

The sentencing judge imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of three years for production, with concurrent 12-month sentences for the remaining counts.

The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the mandatory minimum sentence.

On appeal, the court found the mandatory minimum unconstitutional and determined a fit sentence of 14 months imprisonment for the production offence, with concurrent sentences for the property offences remaining undisturbed.

The Crown sought to admit evidence from Sgt. Rodney Gray regarding the quantified weight of opium extracted from felt cloths, which Health Canada could not determine.

Sgt. Gray performed an experimental process involving rinsing the cloths in warm water and boiling the rinse water to obtain a residue he identified as opium.

The defence argued this constituted expert evidence for which Sgt. Gray was not qualified.

The court determined that the experimental methodology and the interpretation of its results were beyond ordinary human experience, thus qualifying as expert evidence.

Given Sgt. Gray's lack of scientific background and the unverified nature of his methodology, his proposed testimony was ruled inadmissible.

The offender was convicted of importing approximately 15.85 kilograms of cocaine valued at $760,000 from the Dominican Republic.

The offender checked in luggage containing the drugs at the Dominican Republic airport but did not retrieve it upon arrival at Pearson Airport.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 8 years, less 9 months pre-trial custody credit, resulting in a net sentence of 7 years and 3 months.

The court also imposed a section 109 weapons prohibition order and a DNA order.

The defendant, charged with serious drug offences, brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence based on allegations that police treatment as a confidential informant constituted an abuse of process.

The defendant argued that police broke their promise to provide consideration in exchange for information and failed to keep proper records of interactions.

The court found that the police officer formed a genuine belief that the information provided was not useful and therefore did not break any promise.

The court also found that the initial exploratory interaction did not require adherence to full confidential informant procedures and that the officer's failure to retain notes was not abusive given the defendant's concerns about recordings.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine into Canada.

She appealed on the sole ground that the trial judge erred in refusing to give a good character instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly treated evidence of the appellant's background and absence of criminal record as relevant to the central issue of knowledge, and that a separate character evidence instruction was unnecessary, redundant, and potentially confusing given the specific nature of the case.

The defendant, Jacqueline Simone, was charged with attempting to export cocaine, possession for the purpose of exporting, and conspiracy to export cocaine.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by Ms. Simone to the police following her arrest.

The Defence sought to exclude these statements, alleging violations of Ms. Simone's Charter rights.

The court conducted a blended *voir dire* and ultimately ruled that Ms. Simone's statements were voluntary and admissible, finding no Charter breaches.

The defendant, Jacqueline Simone, faced charges including attempting to export cocaine and conspiracy.

During the trial, the defence brought two applications: to exclude telephone records from a co-conspirator's cell phone and to prevent the testimony of an officer regarding retrieved deleted messages from the defendant's phone.

The court dismissed both applications.

The first application was dismissed as the defence failed to establish that the co-conspirator hearsay evidence lacked necessity and reliability, applying the "rare cases" exception from R. v. Mapara.

The second application was dismissed, finding the officer's testimony factual, not expert opinion, and the evidence of deleted messages was probative as post-offence conduct, outweighing any potential prejudice.

The defendant was charged with producing marijuana and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence, alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The defendant challenged the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and two industrial units, his arrest, and warrantless searches of his person and vehicle.

The court found that the search warrants were validly issued based on reliable information from a confidential informer that was corroborated through police investigation.

The arrest was lawful and the seizure of keys from the defendant's person was a valid search incident to arrest.

The court dismissed the Charter application but excluded evidence seized from the residence under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of police carelessness in drafting the Information to Obtain and the significant impact on the defendant's privacy rights in his home.

Evidence from the industrial units and the keys were admitted.

The defendant sought leave to cross-examine five police officers regarding the validity of three search warrants executed on his residence and industrial units.

The Crown conceded that the search warrants were invalid based on the edited Information to Obtain documents and sought to rely on unedited versions under the "step 6 Garofoli" procedure.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant constable broadly, with restrictions on informer privilege, and permitted limited cross-examination of one sub-affiant regarding trespass issues, while denying leave to cross-examine other sub-affiants.