Amit Ghosh

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application alleging excessive force during his arrest, failure to promptly advise him of the reasons for his arrest, unlawful search of his satchel, and failure to record the arrest.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the police officers' evidence credible that the accused resisted arrest, justifying the force used and the delay in advising him of the reasons.

The search of the satchel was deemed a lawful search incident to arrest.

On the trial of the charge, the court rejected the accused's testimony, finding he was in possession of the satchel containing 94.98 grams of fentanyl.

Relying on expert evidence, the court concluded the fentanyl was possessed for the purpose of trafficking and found the accused guilty.

Jian Chen was charged with trafficking one kilogram of ketamine.

The case involved a complex police investigation where Chen was not the initial target but was observed transferring ketamine to the target of the investigation.

Chen challenged the admissibility of evidence on the basis of breaches of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b), specifically delays and failures in providing timely and effective rights to counsel due to language barriers and police procedural shortcomings.

The court found breaches of these rights but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, considering the police acted in good faith and the breaches were contextually minor.

The court convicted Chen of trafficking, emphasizing the importance of reasonable police diligence in facilitating access to counsel of choice, especially in multilingual contexts.

The defendant, Tyler Scott Jackson, was convicted of possession for the purposes of trafficking 60 grams of fentanyl.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence, while the defence proposed 4 years, emphasizing rehabilitation and systemic factors related to the offender's background as a person of colour.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of fentanyl, flight from police, and prior criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as strong family and employer support, demonstrated rehabilitation efforts, difficult formative years, and the timing of his plea after a Charter motion.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and applying relevant jurisprudence on fentanyl trafficking, the court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment.

The accused was stopped at a R.I.D.E. spot check where an officer smelled marijuana and observed erratic behaviour.

After a brief interaction, the accused was arrested for possession of marijuana and placed in a police cruiser.

At the end of the officer's shift, cocaine and a heroin/fentanyl mixture were found in the cruiser where the accused had been seated.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter application, finding the initial interaction and search incident to arrest were lawful.

The court concluded the accused placed the drugs in the cruiser and found him guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of heroin.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after cocaine was discovered in her purse during a mandatory security search at her high school prom.

The defendant challenged the search as violating her s. 8 Charter right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that although the search was mandatory and without individualized reasonable grounds, it was reasonable in all the circumstances given the school's duty to ensure student safety at an organized school event.

The court distinguished the case from more intrusive searches and held that students have a diminished expectation of privacy in the school setting.

The defendant's Charter application was denied and a finding of guilt was entered.

The applicant, Neil Davis, brought an application seeking a declaration that the trial judge had lost jurisdiction and an order of prohibition, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias.

This application automatically suspended the ongoing criminal trial.

The Crown requested a summary dismissal or an order for the trial to continue.

The court reviewed the underlying trial record and found no merit to the applicant's claim of reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the high threshold for such claims.

Consequently, the court ordered the criminal trial to continue as scheduled, effectively denying the suspension sought by the applicant, and noted that the issues raised in the application might become moot if the trial concluded, leaving appeal as the appropriate avenue.

The accused was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000.

The trial judge addressed multiple pre-trial motions including a ruling on whether the judge was the trial judge, a recusal motion, a change of venue motion, and a motion to stay proceedings for delay under the Charter.

The judge ruled that he would continue as the trial judge, rejected the argument that he should recuse himself or transfer the case on his own motion, and scheduled the remaining motions for argument on the trial date.

The judge also addressed concerns about successive applications for prerogative relief potentially delaying the trial indefinitely.

The applicant sought writs of prohibition and procedendo, with certiorari in aid, arguing that the trial judge in the Ontario Court of Justice lacked jurisdiction to try offences in the Central East Region when the alleged offences occurred entirely in the Central West Region (Mississauga/Peel).

The applicant contended that without a sufficient geographical connection or a Chief Justice's order, the trial judge lacked jurisdiction, despite acknowledging province-wide jurisdiction in potentia.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the trial judge had jurisdiction.

The court clarified that regional divisions are administrative, not jurisdictional, and while the Crown generally prosecutes where the offence occurred, the court's jurisdiction is province-wide.

Concerns about "forum shopping" were noted but deemed not to affect jurisdiction, leaving open options for a change of venue or administrative transfer.

Marcus Berger pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of four to five years, while the defence requested three years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of cocaine and the commercial nature of the activity, alongside significant mitigating factors.

These mitigating factors included Berger's guilty plea, his status as a first offender, his serious drug addiction at the time of the offence, and his impressive rehabilitative efforts since his arrest, including achieving sobriety, re-establishing family relationships, and building a successful business.

The court also noted that Berger pleaded guilty despite a breach of his Charter rights that would have weakened the Crown's case at trial.

The judge exercised discretion to impose a sentence below the Crown's requested range due to these unique circumstances.

The accused pled guilty to possession of cocaine and oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 2.5-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court noted the serious nature of the drugs and the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence, which precluded a conditional sentence.

However, considering the accused's significant rehabilitation, stable employment, and the fact that his past trafficking supported his own addiction, the court imposed a reformatory sentence of 18 months imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after acting as a delivery person for two suitcases containing two kilograms of cocaine.

He admitted to wilful blindness regarding the contents.

The offender fled the country while on bail but voluntarily returned years later due to his mother's terminal illness.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the large quantity of drugs and his flight from justice, against mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, lack of related record, and family circumstances.

The offender was sentenced to five years in jail.

Sentencing decision for trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of proceeds of crime arising from the transfer of large quantities of steroid pills and cash between vehicles.

Police seized approximately 220,000 steroid pills and $14,000 in currency.

The court considered the purposes and principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, including denunciation and deterrence.

While the offence involved a substantial commercial quantity of drugs, the offender was a first-time offender with positive community support and no aggravating factors under the CDSA.

The court imposed a conditional sentence rather than incarceration.

The applicant sought to vary his sentence for being a party to child abduction in violation of a court order.

He requested deletion of house arrest conditions, travel restrictions outside the province, and contact restrictions with his daughter and grandchildren in Poland.

The court found that the house arrest conditions had already been served.

However, the court dismissed the application to remove travel and contact restrictions, finding that granting such variation would aid in the continuation of the abduction offence and continue the risk to the children.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with a crowbar during a home invasion.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence while the defence sought a two-year-less-one-day reformatory sentence plus probation.

The court imposed a reformatory sentence, finding this an exceptional case where restorative justice principles, rehabilitation, and the offender's remarkable post-offence conduct warranted a sentence outside the typical home invasion tariff range, despite the serious nature of the offence and its devastating impact on the victims.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his spouse occurring on April 23 and 25, 2011.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her against a wall, struck her with his hand, and threatened her during arguments related to their separation.

The accused denied the allegations, admitting only to a slap in 2006.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was sympathetic and the bruising on her arm supported her account, the accused's testimony, though containing some difficulties and contradictions, was not significantly challenged in cross-examination.

The court concluded that reasonable doubt existed and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The Crown sought to commit multiple co-accused to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry into numerous drug trafficking, firearms trafficking, and criminal organization charges.

The court applied the test for committal, assessing whether there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit several accused on substantive drug and firearms offences, as well as conspiracy charges.

However, the court discharged certain accused on the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence that they operated as a criminal organization rather than for personal benefit.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol after being stopped at a RIDE program.

At trial, the defence argued that the presence of cell phones and police radios near the Intoxilyzer 8000C caused radio frequency interference (RFI), leading to a malfunction.

The court heard expert evidence on the machine's RFI safeguards but found no evidence that a malfunction actually occurred or that it would result in an artificially high reading.

The court concluded the defence's theory was speculative, failed to raise a reasonable doubt, and found the accused guilty.