780-686-7948

Available 24 hrs

Always here for you!

780-686-7948

Call Us Today!

 

drugs Tag

Edmonton Criminal Lawyer Ziv > Posts tagged "drugs"

A Game Changer? R. v. Sharma 2020 ONCA 478

By a 2:1 margin the Ontario Court of Appeal have struck down legislation which prevented drug traffickers from receiving house arrest as an alternative sentence to jail. See  https://www.ontariocourts.ca/decisions/2020/2020ONCA0478.pdf.

I anticipate, that because there was one judge who disagreed with this law change the Crown will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. While this law was struck down because it discriminated unfairly against Aboriginals, the effect of the ruling means that non-Aboriginals will benefit too.  This decision only applies in Ontario but it sets up a framework for challenging the legislation in the rest of Canada.

Why is this case a game changer? Well if it remains law, and that is a big “if”, it means that those who traffic in drugs only minimally (say to support a habit) or who have other exceptional circumstances, such as in the Sharma case, will avoid actual jail.

Furthermore, it opens the door, and gives those who have been caught with trafficking in more than minimal amounts, a chance to begin genuine rehabilitation in hopes of convincing a court not to sentence them to jail proper. A person who is charged with trafficking, knowing that jail in unavoidable, will not have the same incentive to turn their lives around as someone who believes jail can be avoided.

Detention

Psychological Detention

R. v. Wong 2015 OJ No 5049

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says “everyone has the right on arrest or detention  …  to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right;”

The Decision

In a recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, R. v. Wong [2015] ONCA 657 the Court reaffirmed the proposition that detention includes psychological detention and not only physical detention. In the Wong decision a fully dressed police officer entered into an apartment with the consent of the accused. He started noticing some drug related items but didn’t arrest or formally detain the accused.

The Court concluded that as the interaction between Ms. Wong and the officer continued, the officer’s conduct became “increasingly authoritative”.  The detention in this case crystalized when the officer asked questions like “what’s going on here” “if the scale was for baking where are the baking supplies” “I could arrest you for being in possession of drug paraphernalia” .

The Court then also re-emphasized that “without delay” means “immediately” and therefore at the moment Ms. Wong was detained she was required to be informed of her right to counsel, immediately, and because this did not happen all subsequent evidence found (statements and drugs) were ruled inadmissible.  The Court concluded:

In this case, the officer did not know what the law was. He did not understand the circumstances giving rise to detention and he did not appreciate either his responsibilities or the appellant’s rights. The appellant’s rights were trammelled in his search for evidence. The administration of justice would be brought into disrepute by the admission of the evidence, and, in my view, it should have been excluded.

Conclusion

As a criminal defence lawyer who often utilizes the Charter in defence of clients’ it is sometimes very difficult to analyze when a police interaction with a person has become a de facto detention of arrest.  It is critical to know when this Rubicon has been reached because as Wong demonstrates, if evidence is gathered without proper Charter compliance then evidence could be excluded.

 

 

Citizen’s Arrest

R. v. Fitl 2015 AJ No 985

This is a case I conducted. The accused was acquitted after drug evidence was excluded.

The accused was at a rave and was subject to a citizen’s arrest. The trial judge found that the arrest was unlawful because the security guards at the rave did not actually see the accused committing an offence. Furthermore, when the police officer asked the accused for identification, this amounted to an unreasonable search or seizure of the accused. An illegal pat-down search and cell phone search was also found.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms