Drugs / Marijuana Grow Operations Cases
R. v. H. et al.
Client acquitted of production of methamphetamine and drug trafficking. Value of the drugs exceeded seven million dollars. Charges stayed because of successful challenge to the search warrant and the arrest of the accused.
R. v. A. et al
Client acquitted of conspiracy to import and traffic in multiple kilograms of heroin after successful exclusion of the wire tap intercepts due to breaches of the Accused’s rights.
R. v. Y. et al
Four clients acquitted of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after search warrant was successfully challenged at trial and the Hydro employees were declared to be police agents. Evidence excluded at trial included marijuana plants found in multiple residences and identification and fingerprints of the clients.
R. v. L.
Charges of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking are stayed on the eve of trial as a result of unreasonable delay in the proceedings and lack of proper disclosure being made.
R. v. T.
Client acquitted of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after cross-examination shows police witnesses to be inconsistent in their evidence regarding the clients handling of the marijuana.
R. v. L.
Charges of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking stayed by Crown Counsel after cross-examination of the police on the grounds to obtain the search warrant.
R. v. T.
Charges of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking stayed by Crown Counsel after cross-examination of the police regarding the composition of an unfair police line-up.
R. v. H.
Client was acquitted of production of marijuana despite being found by police inside the marijuana grow operation.
R. v. M.
Client acquitted on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking of cocaine where it was shown that the police stop, detention, and search of the client were unlawful.
R. v. N.
Client acquitted of production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking after successful arguments that the client was not in control of the operation, despite the fact he arrested by the police leaving the house.
R. v. W.
After negotiation, charges were reduced from possession for the purpose of trafficking to simple possession for a half pound of marijuana and obtained an absolute discharge for the client, thereby avoiding a criminal record.
R. v. R.
Charges of drug possession were stayed after an argument of a breach of s. 11(b) of the Charter – right to a trial within a reasonable time.
