Ontario Criminal

Charter of Rights

Detective could rely on summary of information given to him by another officer

Two accused appealed their convictions on trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for purposes of trafficking. Both accused were arrested following police observations of what they perceived to be drug transaction between two. Accused was seen to enter residence that was target of drug investigation and seen to leave with shoebox in hand. Confidential informant had told police man who lived at that residence was large scale drug dealer. Police followed accused as he left and about 15 minutes later, stopped his car for second accused who got in his car, then got out of car two minutes later, holding same shoebox, and drove away. Second accused was followed, stopped and arrested at gunpoint. Shoebox was located and contained one kilogram of cocaine. Second accused’s appeal was dismissed as abandoned as he had not surrendered into custody. Accused took issue with trial judge’s failure to exclude evidence and finding police had reasonable grounds to arrest. Appeal dismissed. Detective who ordered second accused’s arrest had received confidential information communicated that surveillance target was significant drug-dealer. Detective could rely on summary of information given to him by another officer in deciding whether he had grounds to make arrest. Target was observed at address where first accused went into and emerged few minutes later with shoebox. Shoebox was later seen in second accused’s possession and took it in his car and then left. Detective who ordered second accused’s arrest, made most of these observations in person, and was informed of arrest by his fellow investigating officers.

R. v. Italiano (Feb. 26, 2015, Ont. C.A., M. Tulloch J.A., G. Pardu J.A., and M.L. Benotto J.A., File No. CA C56934) 120 W.C.B. (2d) 19.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?