S. Weinstock

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown objected to the defence counsel's reference to 'blind couriers' in their closing address, arguing there was no evidence of their existence.

The trial judge declined to instruct the jury to ignore the remark, finding it was a permissible submission that a person could import a substance without knowledge.

The judge noted that in a circumstantial case, inferences consistent with innocence do not require proven facts, and the agreed statement of facts already implied the existence of blind couriers.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit lay opinion evidence from a border services officer that the accused's empty small suitcase felt abnormally or unusually heavy.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer lacked the necessary experiential capacity to form the opinion due to his inexperience.

Alternatively, the court held that the evidence's prejudicial effect outweighed its limited probative value, as the jury might unreasonably rely on it to infer the accused's knowledge of the cocaine.

The offender pled guilty to possession of 6.2 grams of heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to nine years imprisonment, while the defence sought time served and probation.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record and the highly addictive nature of the drugs as aggravating factors, balanced against his guilty plea and employment as mitigating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment, less 7.5 months credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 22.5 months of additional custody.

The applicants, charged with importing cocaine, brought an application to stay the charges against them due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total time to the anticipated end of trial was over 43 months, exceeding the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

After deducting periods of defence delay and delay caused by exceptional circumstances (a change of counsel and a Crown medical emergency), the net delay remained above the ceiling at 35.67 months and 35 months for the respective applicants.

The court found the delay unreasonable and stayed the charges.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after police entered a short-term rental condominium unit without a warrant to arrest him for fraud.

The court found that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the unit and that the warrantless entry and subsequent search of a suitcase violated his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the drug evidence under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

Alternatively, the court found the Crown failed to prove knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and obstructing police after officers observed what they believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction from her vehicle.

The accused testified she was retrieving a lost cell phone, and her boyfriend testified he had hidden the drugs in her car without her knowledge.

The court found the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt regarding her knowledge of the drugs, resulting in acquittals on the drug charges.

However, the accused was convicted of obstructing police for actively resisting her arrest.