Case information

Charter of Rights – Criminal law – Right to be tried within a reasonable time – Evidence – Sentencing – Is the border a Charter-free zone where there is no reasonable expectation of informational privacy, such that the state is entitled to randomly and without grounds search any individual’s personal electronic device that accompanies them into the country – When does a conspiracy to commit a criminal offence cross the line to become a criminal organization, thereby attracting an enhanced level of moral culpability and greater sentence – Is the transitional exception being applied consistently in cases where an accused’s right to be tried within a reasonable time has been presumptively violated or does the lower courts’ application of the exception continue to exhibit the culture of complacency – What is the appropriate way to calculate a fine in lieu of forfeiture when there is evidence of legitimate lawful income co-mingled with proceeds of crime – Charter of Rights, s. 11(b).

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.

Mr. Saikaley was identified through surveillance as one of the targets of a joint CBSA/RCMP investigation into drug trafficking in the Ottawa region. Mr. Saikaley was charged with various offences involving drugs, weapons, extortion, possession of proceeds of crime, conspiracy and criminal organization offences after an extensive investigation. Prior to the commencement of his trial, Mr. Saikaley sought a stay of the charges against him on the basis that he had not been tried within a reasonable period of time, contrary to s. 11(b) of the Charter. The application was dismissed. Mr. Saikaley was convicted of numerous drug related offences, association with a criminal organization, conspiracy, weapons offences, possession of proceeds of crime, extortion, and receiving payment at a criminal rate of interest and was sentenced to 19 years’ imprisonment. The trial judge also made a forfeiture order and imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture. The Court of Appeal allowed the conviction appeal in relation to the convictions for entering into agreements to receive interest at a criminal rate; however, the remainder of the conviction appeal was dismissed. The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the sentence and allowed the sentence appeal in part.