Amanda Delcy Hauk

Mohamed Hassan was sentenced for firearms and counterfeiting offences.

Police found a loaded handgun, counterfeit money, and counterfeiting tools at his home.

He was found guilty of multiple firearms offences after trial and admitted guilt to counterfeiting offences.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record, the sophistication of the counterfeiting operation, and possession of a loaded defaced firearm while on bail.

Mitigating factors included his youth at the time of the offence, strong family support, religious faith, mentorship of younger cousins, and efforts towards rehabilitation, as detailed in an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA).

The court imposed a global sentence of two years and ten months, after credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging rehabilitative potential and the systemic challenges highlighted by the IRCA.

The applicant, Tyler Wirag, brought Charter applications under sections 8 and 9 to exclude evidence (a handgun seized from a crashed vehicle and DNA evidence) and challenge his detention and arrest.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the warrantless seizure of the handgun was justified by exigent circumstances and common law police powers to protect public safety.

The court also found that police had reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was the driver of the vehicle, making his detention and subsequent arrest lawful and Charter-compliant.

This is a ruling on a Crown application to admit investigative notes and records of a police officer (DC Soucy) as a principled exception to the hearsay rule in a criminal trial.

DC Soucy, who was involved in forensic evidence collection and handling, is on medical leave and unable to testify.

The defence conceded necessity but disputed threshold reliability.

The court found that DC Soucy's limited, routine role, contemporaneous note-taking, photographic corroboration, and lack of motive to lie established sufficient substantive reliability.

The application was allowed, making the evidence admissible.

The two accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences involving trafficking in firearms, cocaine, and fentanyl.

The Crown and defence agreed on the base sentences but disagreed on the extent of credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court determined the fit sentences to be 6 years for the first accused and 7 years for the second accused, then quantified the 'Duncan' credit as a 1-year reduction for each accused due to the deplorable conditions, including frequent lockdowns and overcrowding.

After applying the 1.5:1 'Summers' credit, the remaining sentences were calculated.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was 31.89 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases.

The court analyzed periods of delay attributable to the defence (42 days for election of mode of trial, 70 days for counsel unavailability) and found that after deducting these, the net delay fell below the Jordan ceiling.

The court also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The application for a stay was dismissed as the net delay was not unreasonable.

The accused was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance (fentanyl and heroin) after delivering a package containing 494 grams of the drugs to an undercover officer's co-conspirator.

The accused admitted to transferring the package but claimed she did not know it contained drugs, asserting that an acquaintance had left it in her car and asked her to deliver it.

The court rejected her evidence as unbelievable, finding that she either knew the package contained illegal drugs or was wilfully blind to that fact, given the suspicious circumstances and the high value of the drugs ($39,500).

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of five constitutional questions (NCQs) raised by Indigenous respondents charged with various cannabis offences.

The respondents claimed their lands were not part of Canada, that cannabis laws infringed their traditional rights and economic well-being, and that the laws were part of genocide/apartheid, and that the Crown failed in its duty to consult.

The court summarily dismissed four of the five NCQs, finding them non-justiciable or without reasonable prospect of success (sovereignty, genocide/apartheid, economic well-being).

The fifth NCQ, regarding traditional use and trade of cannabis/hemp under s. 35 of the Charter, was not summarily dismissed, but the court ordered further case management due to delays in expert reports.

The defendant, Thanh Hai Lu, was convicted of multiple commercial-level drug trafficking offences involving cocaine, fentanyl, fentanyl/heroin, MDMA, and ketamine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature and large quantities of drugs, the commercial scope of the operation, and the defendant's subjective knowledge of trafficking fentanyl.

Mitigating factors included his lack of criminal record, strong family support, rehabilitative potential, and expressed remorse.

The court also considered the principle of parity with a co-accused and credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

A global sentence of 9.5 years' incarceration was imposed, reduced by pre-trial credit.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of drug trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking following an undercover police investigation.

The accused delivered cocaine and fentanyl to an undercover officer on four occasions after deals were brokered by a co-conspirator.

The court admitted the co-conspirator's text messages under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the accused guilty on all trafficking counts, concluding he had knowledge of the illicit nature of the substances.

The court also found the accused guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking regarding drugs found in an apartment, finding constructive possession proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed convictions for assaulting a police officer, failing to comply with a recognizance, drug trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appeal centred on alleged Charter breaches: excessive force (ss. 7, 12) and denial of the right to counsel (s. 10(b)).

The Court of Appeal dismissed the excessive force argument, finding the trial judge did not misallocate the burden of proof.

However, it allowed the appeal regarding the s. 10(b) breach, finding the trial judge erred in applying the *Grant* factors and should have excluded the evidence (fanny pack contents).

Consequently, convictions for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime were quashed, and acquittals entered, while convictions for assaulting a police officer and breach of recognizance were upheld.

This is an addendum to a prior decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Following the court's decision to allow the appeal, set aside convictions on multiple counts, quash one conviction, and substitute a conviction for simple possession on another count, the parties were invited to submit on sentencing for the substituted conviction.

The parties jointly proposed a six-month sentence before credit for pre-sentence custody.

Given the appellant had already served over a year in pre-trial custody, the court imposed a sentence of time served for the simple possession conviction.

The appellant, Richard Hillier, appealed convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the police negligently destroyed crucial evidence (a fabric pouch and drug packaging) found in a police cruiser, impairing the appellant's right to make full answer and defence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The trial judge erred in dismissing the application for exclusion of evidence.

The Court excluded the evidence found in the cruiser, setting aside three convictions and substituting a conviction for simple possession for one count where the purpose of possession was not proven.

The offender, a medical doctor, was convicted by a jury of trafficking in fentanyl.

He participated in a scheme with a pharmacist and others, prescribing over 4,000 fentanyl patches for financial gain.

The court found his actions constituted a severe breach of trust motivated by greed.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation, the court sentenced the offender to 12 years in prison, along with ancillary orders.

The offender, a pharmacist, was convicted of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl.

She participated in a scheme with a doctor and another individual to divert thousands of fentanyl patches using false prescriptions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the severe breach of trust and the devastating impact of fentanyl.

Despite the offender's rare medical condition and lack of a criminal record, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years imprisonment.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic fentanyl and methamphetamine over a two-week period in October 2017.

The court found the accused was the directing mind and principal actor in a large drug trafficking conspiracy in Waterloo Region.

The accused possessed approximately three kilograms of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for distribution.

The court imposed a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment on the fentanyl conspiracy count, with a concurrent five-year sentence on the methamphetamine count, after crediting three years time served.

The court emphasized the severity of fentanyl trafficking and its devastating impact on the community.

The defendant brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from searches of his condominium pursuant to a general warrant and a search warrant.

The defendant challenged the validity of the warrants on facial and sub-facial grounds, arguing the affiant made misleading statements and omissions.

The court found that while there were some minor errors in the Information to Obtain (ITO), the affiant acted in good faith and the errors did not invalidate the warrants.

Applying the Debot test, the court found the confidential informant information was compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court concluded the warrants were valid and there was no s. 8 Charter breach.

Even if there had been a breach, the court held the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to various wiretap authorizations, general warrants, and search warrants, alleging violations of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Crown conceded a s. 8 breach regarding a May 3, 2016 general warrant due to an error in identifying the specific condominium unit.

The court found that the other authorizations and warrants were validly issued and that the police did not act negligently or in bad faith.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the evidence obtained from the May 3, 2016 general warrant should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, as the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and important to the prosecution.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Ethan Eckstein, brought a pre-trial Charter application challenging the validity of a tracking warrant and search warrants, and seeking to exclude evidence obtained from these searches under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the tracking warrant was valid, as the Information to Obtain (ITO) provided reasonable grounds based on compelling, credible, and corroborated confidential informant information, despite minor drafting errors.

The court also found that the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched unit, thus no s. 8 Charter violation occurred regarding those searches.

Even if Charter breaches had occurred, the court determined that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the seriousness of state conduct, impact on Charter interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Abdul Shahin, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from searches of his apartment unit (595 Proudfoot Lane, unit 808) and police observations in the building's common areas.

The court found that Shahin had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his unit, but not in the common areas (eighth-floor hallway).

The general warrant and subsequent search warrant were deemed valid, and no Charter breaches occurred.

Even if s. 8 Charter breaches had occurred, the court determined that the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, considering the seriousness of state conduct, the impact on Charter interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Tang Hien Quanh, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from his arrest and subsequent searches of his person and a Toyota RAV4.

The defendant argued violations of his s. 9 (arbitrary detention) and s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) Charter rights.

The court found no s. 9 or s. 8 Charter breaches, concluding that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and that the searches were lawful, including the RAV4 search conducted under a valid warrant.

Even if breaches occurred, the court determined that the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the seriousness of state conduct, the impact on the defendant's rights, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.