Anik Louise Jodouin

The applicant, Michel Lalancette, was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

Prior to sentencing, he brought a motion challenging the constitutionality of the simple possession and trafficking provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act under sections 7 and 15 of the Charter.

He sought to challenge the provisions as they apply to all scheduled substances.

The court held that the applicant lacked private interest standing to challenge the simple possession provision, as its invalidation would not mitigate his sentence for trafficking.

The court also declined to grant public interest standing, finding that other reasonable and effective means exist to challenge the provisions.

The constitutional challenge was therefore limited to the trafficking provision as it relates to heroin.

The applicant, charged with possession of oxycodone and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded legal counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The court found that the applicant failed to provide full and complete disclosure of her financial circumstances, noting substantial unexplained deposits and gambling expenses in her bank records.

Furthermore, the court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate that her right to a fair trial would be compromised without counsel, as the trial judge has a duty to assist a self-represented accused.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after being caught with over 7 kilograms of the substance.

The accused admitted the elements of the offence but raised the defence of necessity, arguing he intended to distribute the heroin safely and at cost to addicts to prevent fentanyl overdoses and combat the opioid crisis.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the defence of necessity had no air of reality.

The court held that the perceived danger to addicts was not imminent within the meaning of the jurisprudence, and the accused had reasonable legal alternatives to effect change, such as constitutional challenges or political advocacy.

The accused was found guilty.

The offender, Innocent Annih, was found guilty of three criminal offences: conspiracy to import heroin, and two counts of attempted possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The total amount of heroin involved was approximately 1 kilogram, with an estimated street value between $122,500.00 and $396,000.00.

Annih, a 49-year-old first-time offender with a positive community reputation, was involved in a sophisticated importation scheme.

The Crown sought 12 years' imprisonment, while the Defence suggested 6 to 8 years.

The court considered general deterrence, denunciation, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation as key sentencing principles.

Aggravating factors included the multiple shipments, sophisticated nature of the scheme, and the quantity of heroin.

Mitigating factors included Annih's lack of prior criminal record and community contributions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years' imprisonment, along with a firearms and weapons prohibition order and a Secondary DNA Order.

The accused, Innocent N. Annih, was tried without a jury on three counts: conspiracy to import heroin, attempted possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (Port Perry), and attempted possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (Halton Hills).

The Crown's case was circumstantial, alleging Annih's knowing involvement in a scheme to import heroin using rented mailboxes and false identities.

Annih denied knowledge, claiming he was duped into picking up "Christmas presents" for an elder.

The court rejected Annih's evidence as incredible and found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming, leading to convictions on all three counts.

The accused brought an application to strike his guilty plea, arguing it was not fully informed and voluntary because he did not believe he had any other option but to plead guilty.

The Crown consented to the application.

After hearing brief testimony from the accused, the court found that the accused did not subjectively fully understand his options.

The court struck the guilty plea and adjourned the matter to set a trial date, noting the accused's waiver of his section 11(b) Charter rights for the period from the plea to the conclusion of the trial.

The applicant, Jeremy Boulton, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentencing provision in s. 7(2)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) under s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Boulton, convicted of producing 117 marijuana plants for trafficking, argued the six-month mandatory minimum was grossly disproportionate for reasonably foreseeable hypothetical offenders, specifically a "generous university student" sharing six plants.

The court dismissed the "over the licence limit" hypothetical but accepted the "generous university student" scenario, finding that a six-month mandatory jail sentence for such an offender would be grossly disproportionate and violate s. 12 of the Charter.

The court concluded that s. 7(2)(b)(i) of the CDSA violates s. 12 of the Charter, with further submissions on s. 1 justification to follow.

The applicant sought to quash a search warrant executed at his residence on April 9, 2013, arguing that his Charter rights under section 8 were infringed.

The applicant contended that the Information To Obtain (ITO) was misleading and deficient, failing to demonstrate credibly-based probability that cocaine would be found at his home.

He also argued the warrant was facially invalid because it lacked a start time for the search.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the surveillance evidence sufficiently corroborated the confidential informant information to establish reasonable grounds to believe cocaine would be found at the residence.

The court noted deficiencies in the ITO's compliance with R. v. Rocha regarding disclosure of confidential informants' criminal records and motivation, but found these did not vitiate the warrant.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking a stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided after Legal Aid Ontario denied funding.

The court considered whether the accused had established the three elements required for state-funded counsel: exhaustion of legal aid remedies, inability to retain counsel, and that counsel was essential to a fair trial.

The court found that the anticipated drug trafficking trial was relatively straightforward, involved limited witnesses, and did not raise complex legal issues.

The accused also failed to provide adequate financial disclosure or demonstrate reasonable efforts to secure private funding for counsel.

The application was dismissed.