Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

(PUBLICATION BAN IN CASE)

Charter — Criminal law — Courts — Jurisdiction — Trial — Provincial court judge wrongly recording accused’s election for trial — Whether superior court was without jurisdiction to try him — Undercover police posing as drug dealers deceiving accused to gain entry into his home — Whether evidence was the product of a search and seizure that violated s. 8 Charter— Whether Court of Appeal erred in finding exigent circumstances as defined by s. 11(7) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The applicant invited undercover police agents into his home; he believed they were interested in selling him a large quantity of marihuana. Once inside, the officers gathered incriminating evidence. The premises were secured, a search warrant was obtained, and the applicant was charged with conspiracy to traffic in marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. The applicant and his co-accused elected different trial mechanisms. According to the provisions of the Criminal Code, this would mean a trial before a judge and jury. The judge incorrectly noted the applicant’s election and the applicant was tried before a judge alone.

Following a voir dire, the trial judge rejected the applicant’s argument that the evidence seized should be excluded on the basis that the invitation to the undercover operatives was vitiated because it was given under false pretences. The evidence was admitted and the applicant was convicted. His conviction was upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The jurisdictional issue was cured by the application of the proviso in s. 686 of the Criminal Code.