Case information

Criminal Law — Evidence — Disclosure — Late disclosure — Applicant charged with offences relating to drug importation — At trial, witness providing information that was known to police but which had not been disclosed to Crown or applicant — Crown obtaining additional disclosure of police notes and providing the notes to applicant — Trial judge dismissing applicant’s mistrial application but granting other relief — What is the appropriate test to determine remedy for non-disclosure of material information discovered mid-trial?

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.

The Canada Border Services Agency intercepted a package from Cameroon containing more than 500g of heroin, which was to be delivered to a post box at a Pak Mail location in Barrie, Ontario. Barrie police organized a controlled delivery of the package to investigate and apprehend the parties involved.

Applicant Chibuzo Umeadi was arrested after he attended the Pak Mail store and picked up the package. While he was in custody another package, also containing heroin, arrived at the same Pak Mail box. Police seized this second package as well. Mr. Umeadi was charged with four offences in relation to the packages.

At trial, the manager of the Pak Mail store testified that she had received phone calls and visits by men looking for the second package. The manager had informed the police about these men. At the end of her examination-in-chief, the parties discovered that the police notes concerning the manager’s communication about these men had not been provided to Crown and defence counsel.

Mr. Umeadi applied for a mistrial, arguing that his right to full answer and defence had been prejudiced. The trial judge dismissed the application but granted other relief, including: an adjournment prior to the defence cross-examination; permitting the Crown to withdraw a charge relating to the second package; permitting the parties to amend an agreed statement of facts; and providing a limiting instruction to the jury. The trial continued, and Mr. Umeadi was ultimately convicted on all three remaining charges.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Umeadi’s appeal.