Tanit Gilliam

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 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 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.