Anya Weiler

At a preliminary inquiry into Project Neebing, the Crown sought to commit the defendant to stand trial on seven charges including trafficking in cocaine and production of methamphetamine.

The defendant was discharged on the marijuana possession charge but the Crown sought to proceed on two disputed counts.

The court found sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury could convict on both the trafficking and production charges based on circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, surveillance, and physical evidence of drug production materials and controlled substances seized from two residences associated with the defendant.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The trial judge had refused to exclude evidence of cocaine and cash seized during a vehicle stop for a Highway Traffic Act offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in his analysis of whether the appellant's detention became unlawful (s. 9 breach) after the HTA investigation concluded and a groundless criminal investigation commenced.

The court also found a prolonged s. 10(b) breach (right to counsel) lasting over 30 minutes.

Applying the Grant factors for s. 24(2) exclusion analysis, the court determined that the serious Charter breaches and their impact on the appellant's rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his conviction for drug trafficking offences and firearm-related offences, as well as seeking leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the application judge's Charter ruling regarding the sufficiency of the information to obtain for a search warrant and the application of s. 24(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the application judge's analysis.

On the sentence appeal, the Court granted leave and allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence for the s. 86(1) firearm offence from two years to one year imprisonment concurrent, as the original sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a first offender.

The Court upheld the trial judge's characterization of the appellant as a mid-level drug dealer based on the evidence.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant for his residence and vehicle, alleging that the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements, omissions, and errors that invalidated the authorization.

The court reviewed the ITO, cross‑examination of the affiant officer, and applicable principles governing review of prior authorizations.

Although the court found numerous inaccuracies and overstatements in the ITO, it concluded they resulted from carelessness rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the issuing justice.

After excising erroneous statements and considering permissible amplification, the remaining information still established reasonable and probable grounds linking the accused to drug trafficking and connecting the residence to evidence of those offences.

The court held the search warrant was properly issued and no breach of s. 8 of the Charter occurred.

The accused was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cannabis resin following trial.

The sentencing hearing addressed four key issues: whether to impose a parole ineligibility order under section 743.6 of the Criminal Code; the constitutionality of section 719(3.1) limiting pre-sentence custody credit; the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody; and the admissibility of evidence from an intervening unrelated trial.

The court declined to impose a parole ineligibility order, found section 719(3.1) unconstitutional as applied, granted reduced credit for pre-sentence custody, and excluded evidence from the intervening trial.

The accused was sentenced to five and one-half years imprisonment with 730 days credit for 608 days of pre-sentence custody.

In this drug trafficking trial arising from Project Wanipitee, the court applied the Carter test to determine whether intercepted communications could be admitted under the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that a joint enterprise existed between the accused and others to traffic cocaine in the Durham Region.

The court identified the accused on intercepted communications through circumstantial evidence including surveillance, text message patterns, and physical movements.

The court convicted the accused of trafficking cocaine on two dates and possession of cocaine for trafficking purposes.

The court acquitted on charges related to marijuana possession and possession of cocaine at a separate location due to insufficient evidence of possession and control.