Andrew Choat

The accused, Pritpal Singh, was tried for multiple drug trafficking and possession offences alongside a Garofoli application challenging several search warrants.

The court dismissed the majority of the Garofoli application, finding that the accused did not have standing to seek excision of evidence obtained through the breach of a third party's Charter rights, and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) established reasonable grounds for most of the warrants.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Fact, the court found the accused guilty of trafficking heroin, possession of heroin and opium for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, relying on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of constructive possession.

The co-accused daughter was acquitted at the Crown's request.

The offender was convicted of trafficking in a controlled substance (fentanyl and heroin) after acting as a courier for a half-kilogram package.

Prior to sentencing, the offender applied to reopen the trial based on fresh psychiatric and psychological evidence suggesting intellectual limitations and depression affected her testimony.

The court dismissed the application, finding the expert evidence inadmissible as oath-helping and not sufficiently cogent to affect the verdict.

On sentencing, the Crown sought 8 years while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the gravity of commercial fentanyl trafficking but considered the offender's unique mitigating circumstances, including her lack of criminal record, restrictive bail conditions, and mental health issues.

The court imposed a sentence of 5 years in custody.

Following a jury conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the accused retained new counsel and brought an application for a mistrial prior to sentencing.

The application alleged ineffective assistance by trial counsel for failing to bring a Charter application to challenge the search warrant.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a trial judge is functus officio once a jury verdict is recorded, and the proper remedy for an ineffective assistance claim at this stage is an appeal.