- Our client’s house was searched pursuant to warrant and a marihuana grow operation was discovered. At trial he was prevented from attacking the validity of the warrant for the house on the basis that he lacked a privacy interest since he lived at another residence. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred
in law and ordered a new trial. For the full text of the decision please follow the link below:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/08/04/2008BCCA0481.htm
- The client was charged with production of marihuana and significant evidence against him was discovered by the police in a search of his vehicle.
The Court of Appeal overturned the conviction and held that a warrant for a residence does not grant the police the right to search a vehicle located on the property. Due to the lack of good faith of the searching officers the evidence from the vehicle was excluded and a new trial ordered. A new trial never went
forward as the charges were dropped. For the full text of the decision please follow the link below:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/ca/04/02/2004bcca0230.htm
- Our Clients were scheduled to go to trial in Prince George on February 23 and 24, 2009. They were charged with producing marihuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking in marihuana after a large grow operation was discovered in a warehouse. On the eve of trial, faced with our allegations of constitutional
violations of our clients’ rights by the police and the intentional withholding of disclosure by the police the prosecutor was forced to drop all charges.
- Our Clients were charged with production of marihuana, possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and theft of hydro- electricity. The police obtained a search warrant for their residence and discovered a large commercial grow operation in the basement. The trial judge granted our application to exclude all evidence seized due to a defective search warrant and a violation of our clients' right to counsel. In finding the violation of the accuseds' rights serious the trial judge stated: "I find that a reasonable, dispassionate person aware of all the circumstances would expect police officers to realize there was an error on the warrant and seek to rectify it in the circumstances of this case. For these reasons I find the nature of the s.8 (the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure) breach
was serious." For the full text of the decision please follow the link below:
- Our Client was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in marihuana after 1 pound of marihuana was discovered subsequent to the search of his vehicle. The evidence was thrown out because the investigating officers violated my client's rights to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure and his right to speak with a lawyer.
In deciding to throw out the evidence seized the court stated: "Constitutionally permissible police action is the foundation on which rights of citizens in a democratic society are preserved and protected. Police must carry out their daily interactions in a manner consonant with Charter values."
For the full text of the decision follow the link below:
- Our Client was facing a one year suspension of his driver's licence and the likely loss of his employment as a consequence because he refused to provide a sample of his breath into a roadside device as required by law. It was successfully argued that the demand for the breath sample was not valid and the charge was
dismissed. For the full text of the court’s decision follow the link below:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments
/pc/2008/00/p08_0073.htm
- Our Client was charged with production of marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. Police attended a residence due to a bogus 911 call that an assault was occurring in the residence. Our client answered the door and was the only person present. The grow operation was discovered and the client was
charged. Charges were dismissed because the prosecutor failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the client was actively participating in the growth of the plants or that he had the required measure of control over the residence.For the full text of the court’s decision please follow the link below:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/06/15/2006bcsc1504.htm
- Client was charged with 3 counts of driving while prohibited and facing a 1 year automatic driving prohibition if convicted. Two officers testified that the client was driving but after being pulled over switched seats with his passenger in an attempt to fool the officers and save his driving licence. The officers
were successfully cross-examined as to their specific observations and the client testified to raise a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. All charges were dismissed. For the full text of the court’s decision please follow the link
below:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments
/pc/2006/03/p06_0312.htm
- Clients were charged with production of marihuana and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking. A grow operation was discovered in the basement and upstairs closet of the residence in which they were living upon execution of a valid search warrant. Due to the inability of the officers to recollect
details of the investigation the court held that although the circumstances were highly suspicious the standard of proof required for convictions had not been met. For the full text of the court’s decision please follow the link below:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments
/pc/2006/03/p06_0385.htm
- Our Client alleged that the police violated his constitutional rights in how they obtained the warrant to search his warehouse and how the police executed the warrant. He sought exclusion of the 912 plants and grow equipment seized. After a successful cross-examination of the principal investigating officer, the court
held that in obtaining the search warrant this officer failed disclose very significant information and that he was an unreliable witness: “In the case at bar, notwithstanding the size of this marihuana grow operation and its apparent complexity, I am satisfied that given the cumulative effect of the Charter
breaches, the admission of this evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. I therefore exclude the evidence obtained as a result of the search warrant.” For the full text of the court’s decision follow the link below:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments
/pc/2005/04/p05_0485.htm
- Our Client was charged with growing marihuana, possession of marihuana for trafficking and theft of hydro. Client applied for exclusion of evidence obtained from him upon his arrest after driving away from a residence that
contained a marihuana grow operation. This evidence was crucial to the prosecutor’s case and included keys to the residence and an incriminating statement about which key operated the lock to the front door of the residence.
After cross-examination of witnesses the court concluded that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest, thereby violating his right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure and also violated his right to counsel. The evidence was excluded and the charges were dismissed. For
the full text of the court’s decision follow the link below:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments
/pc/2004/04/p04_0465.htm
-
Our clients were charged with marihuana offences after a search warrant was issued and a grow operation was discovered in their residence. The court found that the warrant should not have issued since it was based in part on an unreasonable entry onto the property to gather grounds and there were material
omissions in the application for the warrant. The evidence was excluded due to an absence of good faith by the investigating officers. The charges were dismissed for the full text of the court’s decision follow the link below:
http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgments
/pc/2004/06/p04_0613.htm
- Appeal of Refusal of Spousal Sponsorship Allowed
The client’s application to sponsor her husband was refused because the overseas immigration officer did not believe the relationship was genuine. The Immigration and Refugee Board Appeal Division disagreed and ordered the application be processed. The family was re-united shortly thereafter. For the full text of the decision follow the link below:
Case Study Disclaimer: The case studies on this web site are intended to be illustrative of various legal situations for which Jay I. Solomon Law Corporation lawyers commonly appear as legal counsel. Every case is unique. Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in individual cases.
top