R v C A & K (2011)
This complex drug conspiracy and criminal organization investigation spread from Vancouver through Calgary to Edmonton and Fort McMurray. It resulted in multiple parallel prosecutions in Calgary and Edmonton. The general investigation and wiretap component generated over half a million pages of documents and related data which made this the largest volume of disclosure in Alberta legal history up to that time. Mr Rice brought a pretrial motion to exclude from evidence various wiretap intercepts because the RCMP breached the terms of the wiretap authorizations when they failed to properly monitor the telephone calls. The wiretap authorizations required the police to monitor and listen to the telephone calls live. It was argued that the police violated the court orders when they used a feature on the interception equipment called “put away” which meant they were not properly monitoring the intercepted calls in real time. The trial judge granted the motion and ruled that the search and seizure was an abuse of process under s 7 of the Charter of Rights.
R v D H & K (2010)
The three defendants in this conspiracy and drug trafficking case were denied bail and remanded into pretrial detention. The Crown Attorney then withheld disclosure for almost two years. While the case languished in the Provincial Court of Alberta and the defendants languished in the Edmonton Remand Centre, it came to light that the police officer who had sworn the affidavits for the wiretap applications had committed suicide. Mr Rice was contacted by H who was alleged to be the “food boss” responsible for the distribution of cocaine to street level dealers. Mr Rice brought a bail application on behalf of H that was granted in the Court of Queen’s Bench. After H was released from custody, Mr Rice brought a motion for legal costs in the Court of Queen’s Bench. After that application was granted, and the government was ordered to pay the costs of the defence, the Crown Attorney stayed the charges.
R v L B & L (2007)
During trial preparation in this conspiracy and drug trafficking case it was learned that the Crown Attorney was withholding information that was relevant to the credibility and reliability of a Calgary police officer who was involved in the investigation. Mr Rice, and counsel for the two co-defendants, brought a joint application for disclosure of the information under ss 7 and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights. The evidence on the motion showed that the police officer had provided an expert opinion to the affiant for the wiretap authorizations regarding investigative necessity. In granting the motion, the trial judge ruled that the expert police officer was imbued in the investigation and that the withheld information was relevant. The information that was then disclosed revealed that the expert police officer was addicted to crack cocaine during the time that he provided the opinion about investigative necessity. He had been investigated by the RCMP under the Code of Conduct and subsequently resigned. This information was then used in a subsequent motion to exclude the wiretap evidence under ss 8 and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights.
R v L O & C (2006)
This wiretap case was the largest drug trafficking prosecution in Calgary legal history up to that time. It was similar to the Edmonton case on which Mr Rice acted called R v C (2003) discussed below. There were fewer defendants in this case but the wiretap component and volume of investigative material was approximately the same. The prosecution bogged down when the Crown Attorney delayed providing disclosure to the defendants. After two years of court motions, Mr Rice brought an application for a stay of proceedings asserting that the state had violated his client’s right to a trial within a reasonable time under ss 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights. The trial judge never got to rule on the application. The Crown Attorney stayed the charges.
R v C (2003)
This Edmonton case was the largest prosecution in Alberta legal history up to that time. It began on September 24, 1999, and was continuously before the courts until the trial judge granted the defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings on September 8, 2003. A special courtroom was constructed in the Law Courts Building to accommodate the trial. The case involved two parallel trials, over 400 police officers, multiple wiretap authorizations and search warrants, and approximately 189,000 pages of documents. The third Information in the Provincial Court of Alberta had charged 37 defendants with 41 offences. The case became notorious when it began to collapse during two years of pretrial disclosure and privilege motions. The trial judge called it a “new species” when she stayed all charges for breach of the defendants’ right to be trial within a reasonable time under ss 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights.