Anik Louise Jodouin

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 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.