Tanit Gilliam

The applicants challenged three Part VI authorizations to intercept private communications, arguing a lack of reasonable and probable grounds and investigative necessity.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) relied almost entirely on unproven tipsters, lacked sufficient detail and corroboration, and contained misleading information regarding applicant travel.

The court also found that investigative necessity was not established as other reasonable investigative methods were not adequately explored.

Consequently, the authorizations were deemed invalid, and the intercepted communications were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused were charged with multiple offences including conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and heroin, and criminal organization offences related to a motorcycle club.

The Crown relied heavily on police surveillance and intercepted communications.

The court admitted the visual and voice identification evidence, as well as a membership list under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found two of the accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and heroin, but acquitted the third.

The court acquitted all accused of the criminal organization charges, finding the Crown failed to prove that one of the main purposes of the motorcycle club was the facilitation of serious offences.

One accused was also found guilty of weapons and proceeds of crime offences.

The applicant, Kevin Wallace, charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) used to secure an authorization for private communications interception.

This application was part of a Garofoli challenge to the authorization.

The court granted leave to cross-examine on two specific areas: alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding tipsters #1 and #4, and the asserted involvement of the applicant in a meeting in Dubai, particularly concerning conflicting travel information.

Leave was denied for questions regarding independent investigation/corroboration of tipster information and investigative necessity, as sufficient information was already available or cross-examination would not materially assist.

The accused brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained through omnibus warrants and search warrants, alleging insufficient material before the issuing judges and breaches of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court addressed issues of standing, the excision of misleading expert opinion and irrelevant information from the Information To Obtain (ITO), and the sufficiency of confidential informant (CI) information for both predicate warrants (tracking and dialed number recorder warrants) and the main wiretap authorization.

The court found that all accused had standing, excised certain inflammatory and misleading portions of the ITO, but ultimately concluded that the predicate warrants met the lower "reasonable suspicion" standard and the wiretap authorization met the "best interests of justice" standard, supported by credible and corroborated CI information.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought a pretrial motion to admit the opinion evidence of two police officers as expert witnesses in a trial involving drug trafficking and criminal organization charges.

The first officer was proposed as an expert in drug trafficking and slang, which the court admitted fully, finding the evidence reliable and necessary.

The second officer was proposed as an expert on outlaw motorcycle gangs, specifically the Outlaws and the Black Pistons.

The court found the second officer qualified to testify on the general history and culture of outlaw motorcycle gangs, but excluded his opinion on the specific culture of the Black Pistons and the ultimate issue of whether they constituted a criminal organization, due to his limited specific experience with that group.

The accused brought a pretrial motion for Crown disclosure of questionnaires, debriefing notes, and handlers' notes regarding 22 confidential informants used to support wiretap authorizations.

The Crown conceded the questionnaires and debriefing notes but opposed disclosing the handlers' notes, arguing they were not relied upon by the affiant.

The court held that in the context of a Garofoli application, handlers' notes not relied upon by the affiant do not form part of the investigative file requiring disclosure.

However, the court ordered disclosure of the handlers' notes for two informants because the affiant himself was their handler.

The applicant sought leave to appeal a summary conviction appeal judge's decision upholding his conviction.

The conviction related to a car driven to the border that was found to be subject to duties under section 159 of the Customs Act.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's decision and denied leave to appeal.

Accused charged with bribery of foreign public officials sought production of investigative records from the World Bank’s Integrity Vice Presidency in support of a Garofoli challenge to wiretap authorizations.

The World Bank asserted immunity as an international organization and refused to produce additional materials.

The court held that by initiating and actively assisting the Canadian criminal investigation, the organization had impliedly waived immunity and must accept the procedural burdens of a criminal prosecution.

The applicants established likely relevance under the first stage of the O’Connor framework.

Production was ordered for certain investigative materials for judicial review.

The appellant appealed four of his six drug-related convictions, including conspiracy to traffic, trafficking, and two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.

He argued that intercepted communications did not show a finalized agreement to traffic, that the trial judge erred in admitting co-conspirator statements without sufficient analysis, that he could not be convicted of possessing unseized cocaine, and that the trial judge improperly inferred the use of drug paraphernalia without expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence, including extensive intercepted communications and circumstantial evidence.

The appellant appealed his convictions for producing marihuana and possession of over 3 kilograms of marihuana.

The police obtained a telewarrant to search the appellant's apartment after the landlord discovered marihuana plants during an appraisal inspection and had his property manager contact the police.

The appellant argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the warrant was misleading because it implied the landlord spoke directly to the police, rather than through his employee.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no material distinction in the reliability of the information and concluding there was no breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The applicant, a Bangladeshi citizen residing in Bangladesh, was charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act with bribing foreign public officials in relation to a bridge construction project.

He brought an application to prohibit the Crown from proceeding with the charge, arguing that Canada lacked jurisdiction over him as a foreign national whose alleged acts occurred entirely outside Canada.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while Canada had jurisdiction over the offence itself, the Act did not extend jurisdiction over the person of a foreign national acting abroad unless they were physically present in Canada.

The court granted a stay of proceedings against the applicant.

The Crown applied under s.16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for forfeiture of a motorcycle club clubhouse alleged to be offence-related property following convictions of several members for drug trafficking offences.

The court held that the clubhouse facilitated drug trafficking activities, including meetings, negotiations, and at least one drug transaction, and therefore qualified as offence-related property committed in relation to the offences.

The respondent corporation failed to establish that it was an innocent owner under s.19(3), as the property was effectively controlled by members of the organization involved in the offences.

The court also rejected relief under s.19.1(3), finding forfeiture was not disproportionate given the seriousness of the offences, the role of the property, and its fortified nature.

The Crown sought forfeiture of real property under s. 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following convictions of several members of a motorcycle club for drug trafficking and conspiracy offences.

Evidence showed that the property functioned as the clubhouse and operational hub for members involved in trafficking cocaine, oxycodone, and GHB, and was used for meetings, negotiations, and transactions connected to those offences.

The court held that trial evidence from the related criminal proceedings could be relied upon in the forfeiture hearing and concluded that the property was “offence‑related property” because it facilitated networking and discussions integral to the drug trafficking activities.

The respondent corporation failed to establish that it was an innocent owner or that it was sufficiently separate from the convicted offenders, many of whom were de facto shareholders or controlling members of the organization.

The court further held that forfeiture was not disproportionate given the seriousness, scale, and commercial nature of the offences and the fortified nature of the property.

The appellant was committed to stand trial on charges of conspiracy to traffic in narcotics and conspiracy to traffic in association with a criminal organization.

The charges arose from his involvement in collecting payment for a drug deal after the drugs had already been delivered.

The appellant argued that the offence of trafficking was complete upon delivery, and therefore he could not have conspired to traffic.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sale of drugs is a continuing transaction that includes the payment of consideration, and the appellant's involvement in arranging payment constituted participation in the conspiracy.

The appellant appealed her conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, seeking to set aside her guilty plea.

She argued her trial counsel provided ineffective representation and that her plea was not voluntary or informed due to threats from her co-accused and a lack of understanding of the immigration consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice from the alleged ineffective assistance and concluding the plea was both informed regarding deportation risks and voluntary, as the allegations of threats were not credible.

The appellant was convicted of importing 5.9 kilograms of opium into Canada and sentenced to five-and-a-half years' incarceration.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting opinion evidence from RCMP officers, misdirected the jury on wilful blindness, and failed to adequately explain the knowledge requirement.

He also appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no prejudice from the officers' testimony and concluding the jury instructions on wilful blindness and knowledge were sufficient.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit given the large quantity of drugs involved.