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.

The three accused faced various charges relating to the importation of 29 kilograms of heroin and 600 grams of opium concealed in a shipping container of marble stone.

At the close of the Crown's case, all three accused brought motions for directed verdicts.

The court dismissed the motions brought by two of the accused, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer their knowledge and participation in the drug importation and trafficking scheme.

However, the court granted the motion for the third accused, the consignee of the shipment, finding no evidence reasonably capable of supporting an inference that he knew about the drugs, and entered not guilty verdicts on his charges.

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 accused applied to exclude evidence of a marihuana grow operation discovered during a police search of his residence, alleging a violation of his rights under s. 8 of the Charter.

Police responded to a 911 call regarding a male and female fighting.

Upon arrival, the officer was told by a female occupant that her special needs son had made the call while playing with the phone.

The officer conducted a safety sweep of the residence to ensure all occupants were accounted for and safe, discovering marihuana plants in plain view in the furnace room.

The court found the safety sweep was objectively reasonable given the nature of the priority call and the lack of precise information, concluding there was no s. 8 breach.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant pleaded guilty to importing approximately 100 kilos of khat into Canada and was sentenced to a 16-month conditional sentence.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred in finding he was in a breach of trust because he did not personally switch the luggage tags.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant, as an airport baggage handler with access to secure areas, was in a gross breach of trust by participating in the importation scheme.

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 offender was convicted by a jury of importing 406 grams of cocaine after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica.

At sentencing, the defence argued for mitigation based on alleged compulsion falling short of duress and repeated strip searches conducted by law enforcement.

The court rejected the claim of compulsion, finding the offender not credible and concluding she participated willingly for personal gain.

However, the court found that a second strip search conducted by police after arrest violated s. 8 of the Charter because it was carried out as a matter of routine policy without reasonable grounds.

Applying sentencing principles and the range established in appellate jurisprudence, the court reduced the otherwise fit sentence to reflect the police misconduct.

During a criminal trial, the Crown sought to admit statements allegedly made by the accused while detained at an airport under the Customs Act after officers suspected drug smuggling.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in oppressive circumstances.

The court held the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt due to the absence of reliable recordings, incomplete officer notes, and interrogation conditions including prolonged detention, lack of sleep, and uncomfortable conditions.

These factors undermined the reliability and context of the alleged admissions.

The impugned statements were ruled inadmissible.

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.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial following a preliminary inquiry on charges of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The applicant argued the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded her jurisdiction because there was no evidence that he knew the shipment he handled contained heroin or any controlled substance.

The court reviewed the governing test under s. 548 of the Criminal Code and the jurisprudence in Shephard, Arcuri, and related authorities, emphasizing the highly deferential standard applicable on certiorari review of committal decisions.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including phone intercepts, coordinated activity with a co‑accused, and handling of the shipment, was capable of supporting an inference of knowledge if believed.

As some evidence existed on the essential element of knowledge, the preliminary inquiry judge acted within jurisdiction and the committal could not be disturbed.