Androu Gerges

This decision concerns the sentencing of two individuals, Adam Luangphasi and Alexander Le, following their convictions for multiple drug-related conspiracies arising from "Project Southam." Luangphasi was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine (Carpet Conspiracy) and two counts of conspiracy to import cocaine (Guyana Conspiracy and Plane Conspiracy), where he was identified as a top principal.

Le was found guilty of conspiracy to export cannabis (Cannabis Conspiracy) and also conspiracy to traffic cocaine (Carpet Conspiracy) and conspiracy to import cocaine (Guyana Conspiracy), acting as a close colleague to Luangphasi.

The court applied sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, emphasizing the severe societal harm caused by drug importation and trafficking.

It rejected the argument that a "dry conspiracy" (where drugs were not actually imported) warrants a significant sentence reduction if the conspiracy was not abandoned.

Luangphasi received a global sentence of 18 years imprisonment, while Le received a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, with specific concurrent terms for each count.

Ancillary orders for DNA and firearms prohibitions were also imposed.

Michael Bennett and Dylan Griggs were found guilty after trial of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the serious nature of the drugs, the profit motive, the large quantities involved, and the fact that both were first offenders without drug dependence issues.

Credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions (house arrest, curfew) was factored into the sentences.

Bennett was sentenced to a total of five years in penitentiary, and Griggs was sentenced to a total of eleven years in penitentiary.

Automatic weapons prohibitions, DNA orders, and victim surcharges were also imposed, and seized cash and offence-related property were ordered forfeited.

The accused, Pengxiang Wang, was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle and having over 80 mg of alcohol in his blood.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence, alleging breaches of Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), primarily related to arbitrary detention, unlawful search and seizure, and delays in informing him of rights and providing access to counsel in Mandarin.

The court found no Charter breaches, determining that police had reasonable grounds for detention and arrest, and that Mr. Wang understood his rights despite a language barrier, with officers taking reasonable steps to provide a Mandarin interpreter and access to duty counsel without delay.

Consequently, the evidence was admitted, and the accused was found guilty on both counts.

The defendants in a drug and proceeds offence case sought standing to challenge search warrants under the Charter.

The court dismissed the application for standing for all defendants except one (Taylor Brennan, whose charges were later stayed), finding that they failed to prove a sufficient connection to the searched properties to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy on a balance of probabilities.

The decision reiterates that the onus is on the defendant to prove standing and discusses the application of the Edwards factors and the normative vs. categorical approach to Charter standing.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and other offences following a traffic stop.

The driver threw a brick of cocaine out the window while the passenger resisted arrest.

The court rejected the driver's exculpatory testimony, finding him guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, but acquitted him of simple possession and dangerous driving.

The passenger was found guilty of possession of proceeds of crime and resisting arrest, but acquitted of the drug charges as there was insufficient evidence he knew the cocaine was in the vehicle.

During a joint criminal trial, one co-accused testified and implicated the other.

The implicated co-accused sought to cross-examine the testifying co-accused on a previously struck guilty plea and subsequently applied for severance.

The court ruled that cross-examination on a struck guilty plea is legally impermissible, as a struck plea must be treated as if it never happened to protect the presumption of innocence.

The court also dismissed the severance application, finding that a joint trial would not cause an injustice and that the implicated co-accused could still mount a full answer and defence without referencing the struck plea.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg/100 ml) following a traffic stop for dangerous driving.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter violations including arbitrary detention, failure to provide timely rights to counsel, and failure to comply with the "forthwith" requirement for the approved screening device demand.

The court found minor breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the evidence, finding that the breaches were inadvertent, the impact on Charter-protected interests was minimal, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellant, Fiago Heron Sr., appealed convictions for two counts of weapons dangerous to the public peace and one count of assault with a weapon.

The appeal court found that the trial judge erred by failing to critically assess the credibility of a key Crown witness, Paula Heron (the appellant's wife), despite significant inconsistencies in her testimony and a potential motive to fabricate.

The trial judge's reliance on the consistency of Crown witnesses without proper credibility analysis of Paula Heron was deemed an insufficient ground for conviction.

The appeal was allowed, convictions vacated, and a new trial ordered.

The accused pleaded guilty to procuring a minor to be a prostitute, receiving a financial benefit from prostitution, and advertising sexual services.

The offences occurred over a nine-day period in February 2018.

The accused groomed and exploited a 17-year-old victim with developmental delays, controlling her work as an escort and retaining most of the financial proceeds.

The court imposed a sentence of two years imprisonment concurrent on all charges, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim and mandatory counselling.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, one count of assault with a weapon, and one count of mischief.

The charges arose from an incident at the accused's family home where he allegedly attacked his son with a machete and a metal bat following a dispute over a basketball net.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon and two counts of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, but acquitted him of mischief.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding that the accused's response was disproportionate to any perceived threat.

Two defendants were jointly charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm following a street race on May 11, 2015, that resulted in a collision with an innocent third party.

The Crown alleged the defendants engaged in street racing along Mavis Road in Mississauga, which caused one defendant's vehicle to lose control and collide with the victim's Honda Civic, causing serious injuries.

The trial focused on whether both defendants were driving dangerously and whether the second defendant's manner of driving significantly contributed to the victim's bodily harm despite not being physically involved in the collision.

The court found the first defendant guilty as charged and the second defendant guilty of dangerous driving simpliciter, finding insufficient evidence that the second defendant's driving significantly contributed to the victim's injuries.