Drugs – Alberta Criminal Law Blog

R v Paris (ABCA): Lengthy warrant execution window to maximize chance of drug seizure did not make the warrant “anticipatory”

By Damian Rogers|2017-09-28T23:52:38-06:0004/02/2015|Charter of Rights, Drugs, Search and Seizure|

A search warrant for a residence was granted under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ("CDSA"), section 11. The warrant was to search for cocaine, money, weigh scales and other drug trafficking paraphernalia. The warrant permitted execution over a 48-hour period. In the information to obtain ("ITO") sworn in support of the warrant, the affiant police officer indicated that she believed that the extended period for execution was necessary because drug traffickers' supply of narcotics is variable. The officer stated that she planned to execute the warrant when the information available, including surveillance, suggested the highest probability of a drug seizure (when certain persons and a vehicle were present at the location to be searched). Section 11 of the CDSA requires reasonable grounds to believe that a controlled substance is currently in the place to be searched. Defence counsel argued that the ITO indicated that the officer did not believe that there were controlled substances in the residence when the warrant was authorized and, accordingly, the search warrant ought not to have been issued. Defence counsel characterized the [...]

R v Melnyk (ABCA): Application to reconsider starting point sentence for cocaine trafficking denied

By Damian Rogers|2017-09-28T23:57:16-06:0026/09/2014|Drugs, Sentencing|

The Crown appealed a 90 day intermittent sentence imposed on Mr. Melnyk for trafficking in cocaine. In response, the defence made an application to re-argue the long-standing starting point set in R v Maskell, 1981 ABCA 50 (CanLII). That case provides that a penitentiary term is the starting point sentence for commercial trafficking in cocaine on more than a minimal scale. The application for reconsideration was denied: R v Melnyk, 2014 ABCA 313 (CanLII). After reviewing the criteria set out in R v Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363 (CanLII) for reconsideration of a precedent decision, the panel concluded that it was not necessary to reconsider Maskell. Maskell, while an older decision, had been applied in more recent appeal decisions. While the defence had argued that the Maskell decision contained an obvious flaw, in that it did not clearly define what constituted commercial trafficking beyond a minimal scale, the panel concluded that this can be addressed by decisions developing "the indicia of commercial trafficking on more than a minimal scale". It was not necessary to reconsider the starting point decision. Image Credit: UK Home Office. Link. Licence.