Victoria Chan

The defendant, Prince Adjei-Boateng, was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police investigation.

The Crown alleged he was the supplier for a drug dealer, Michael Patania.

The court considered the admissibility of co-conspirator statements and the defendant's spontaneous exculpatory statement.

Despite strong circumstantial evidence, the court found reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence, corroboration of the defendant's alternative explanation (used car parts business), and the police's failure to examine seized cell phones for direct communication between the defendant and the drug dealer.

The defendant was acquitted on all charges.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence on the basis that the Information to Obtain failed to comply with statutory requirements under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and violated his Charter section 8 rights.

The applicant was charged with possession of criminal proceeds and three counts of possession of prohibited drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The court applied the Garofoli step 6 procedure to assess the reliability of confidential informant information that had been redacted to protect informer privilege.

The court found that the two confidential informants provided sufficiently reliable, detailed, and corroborated information that, when combined with undercover police investigation, established reasonable grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of marijuana, and failing to comply with a condition of his recognizance.

A Charter application was brought alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant sought a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The court found that while the initial investigative detention was lawful, the police conducted an unjustified strip search in the field without exigent circumstances.

The court determined that a pat-down search would have been sufficient to address officer safety concerns.

The strip search violated section 8 of the Charter.

Evidence of all drugs seized was excluded as a remedy under section 24(2).

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The trial judge had refused to exclude evidence of cocaine and cash seized during a vehicle stop for a Highway Traffic Act offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his analysis of whether the appellant's detention became unlawful (s. 9 breach) after the HTA investigation concluded and a groundless criminal investigation commenced.

The court also found a prolonged s. 10(b) breach (right to counsel) lasting over 30 minutes.

Applying the Grant factors for s. 24(2) exclusion analysis, the court determined that the serious Charter breaches and their impact on the appellant's rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.