Alex Trica

The offender, a 29-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in carfentanil.

One of the sales resulted in the overdose death of the purchaser.

The court considered the lethal nature of carfentanil and the offender's profit motive as aggravating factors, balanced against his guilty plea, genuine remorse, and restrictive bail conditions.

The court accepted the joint submission and sentenced the offender to four years in prison, less 12 days of pre-sentence custody credit.

This ruling addresses the continuation of an ongoing jury trial for second-degree murder amidst the rapid spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19.

Despite a joint submission from the Crown and defence to continue the trial, the court exercised its discretion to adjourn the proceedings.

The judge balanced the accused's right to an expeditious and fair trial against the paramount health and safety concerns for all courtroom participants, including jurors, counsel, staff, and the accused's family.

The court took judicial notice of the Omicron variant's significantly increased transmissibility and its impact on vaccine effectiveness, noting the high likelihood of trial disruptions due to exposures or infections.

The trial was adjourned until February 7, 2022, with a reassessment meeting scheduled for January 31, 2022.

The offender was convicted by a jury of two counts of trafficking in cocaine and two counts of possession of property derived from crime.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factor that the offender was a supplier, balanced against mitigating factors including his employment, family support, lack of prior drug record, and need for ongoing physiotherapy due to a severe hit-and-run accident.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 months imprisonment.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for offences related to a marijuana grow operation discovered in the basement of a residential property at 50 Ravenscrest Drive in Toronto.

Arin Hwang was charged with producing marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of dried marijuana found in a suitcase, and theft of electricity.

Van Da Do was charged with producing marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity.

The court acquitted Do of all charges due to unreliable eyewitness identification evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence linking him to the premises.

Hwang was convicted of simple possession of the dried marijuana found in the suitcase but acquitted of the remaining charges, as the Crown failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he exercised the requisite control over the basement grow operation.

Four defendants charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana and related offences arising from a grow operation investigation applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on grounds of unreasonable trial delay.

The defendants had been before the court for approximately 21.5 months.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of the delay, allocating it among inherent delay, actions of the accused, actions of the Crown, and institutional resource limitations.

The court found that the total delay attributable to the Crown or systemic factors was 8 months and 19 days, which fell within the Askov/Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months.

The court determined that the prejudice suffered by the defendants was modest and that society's interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the defendants' interest in prompt adjudication.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The accused was charged with production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity on March 31, 2011.

The trial was scheduled for August 8-9, 2012, resulting in a total delay of 16 months and 8 days from charge to trial.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin and found that after deducting reasonable periods for intake, judicial pre-trial procedures, and counsel preparation, the actual delay was 13 months.

The court found that this delay exceeded the guidelines and that the accused suffered both actual and inferred prejudice.

A stay of proceedings was granted.