Arielle Sarah Elbaz

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings based on alleged prosecutorial and police misconduct, arguing that the conduct breached his right to a fair trial under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Charter, or violated his right to make full answer and defence.

The court reviewed the legal principles for a stay of proceedings, including the two categories of abuse of process (trial fairness and residual category) and the three-part test from R. v. Babos.

The court found that while mistakes were made by the Crown and police regarding disclosure and a Zoom meeting incident, there was no deliberate misconduct.

The court concluded that the applicant's right to a fair trial was not infringed, nor was the integrity of the justice system undermined.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court analyzed the total delay, defence delay, and exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the trial going longer than expected.

The court found that the net delay, after accounting for defence delay and exceptional circumstances, fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The applicant failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, Miguel Orlando Zavala-Martinez, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

At sentencing, the defence sought a stay of proceedings or a reduced sentence, arguing police misconduct in obtaining the search warrant constituted Charter violations (ss. 8 and 9) and an abuse of process.

The court found that the affiant police officer failed to be full, frank, and fair in drafting the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant, leading to an infringement of the accused's Charter rights.

While the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, it considered the state misconduct and the accused's personal circumstances (age, lack of criminal record, medical conditions, family responsibilities) as significant mitigating factors.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with a three-month probationary period, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, departing from the typical custodial range for such an offence.

The accused, Miguel Orlando Zavala-Martinez, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

At sentencing, new defence counsel sought a reduction in sentence, including an absolute discharge or suspended sentence, alleging egregious violations of the accused's Charter rights (sections 7, 8, 9) and police misconduct during the investigation and search.

The defence argued that the evidence presented to the jury was obtained through fabricated grounds and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant.

The Crown opposed, arguing that these issues should have been raised at a pre-trial admissibility hearing and that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to decide Charter violations at this stage.

The court denied the defence's claim of a section 7 Charter breach for non-disclosure but ruled that the defence could call a police witness to adduce evidence on the alleged Charter violations and state misconduct to determine if a sentence reduction is appropriate, potentially below statutory limits, in accordance with principles from R. v. Nasogaluak.

Samuel Kebede brought a Garofoli application to exclude drug evidence, arguing that the search warrant was invalid due to material misrepresentations in the information to obtain (ITO) and insufficient informant information, thereby violating his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found two minor, good-faith misrepresentations in the ITO that were not material to the justice of the peace's decision to issue the warrant.

The court also determined that the confidential informant tips were sufficiently compelling, corroborated, and credible, despite some weaknesses in credibility and corroboration, especially given the urgency associated with firearms.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, as the process of obtaining the warrant was not found to be subversive of the prior authorization system.

The accused sought to withdraw his guilty plea to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, which he had entered on May 9, 2017.

The accused argued that his plea was not informed because he was unaware that the Crown would stay charges against his co-accused.

The court found that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, and that the Crown was not obliged to disclose its prosecutorial strategy regarding co-accused individuals.

The application to withdraw the guilty plea was dismissed.

T.E., a 32-year-old drug addict with a history of drug offences, was found guilty of three counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

Police seized 131.88 grams of cocaine and $14,500 from her apartment, where she lived with her young son.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the trafficking and her criminal record, and mitigating factors, such as her abusive past, addiction, psychiatric condition, and harsh pre-trial detention conditions during pregnancy.

The Crown sought a 3 to 3.5-year sentence, while the defence sought 24 months after credit for pre-trial custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of 31 months, reduced to 24 months after credit for 7 months of pre-trial custody (137 days at 1.5:1 enhanced credit).

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime firearm prohibition, and forfeiture of drugs and proceeds.

The accused, Shamar Cole, challenged a search warrant for his vehicle, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights and seeking to exclude evidence of cocaine seized.

The court found that while the police had reasonable and probable grounds to search the accused's residence, the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds for the vehicle search due to a technical omission by the affiant, thus violating s. 8.

However, applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) analysis, the court determined that the Charter breach was technical and not egregious, the impact on privacy was limited (vehicle vs. dwelling), and the public interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges on their merits strongly favoured admission.

Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

The accused, T.A.E., brought an application to exclude evidence (crack cocaine and money) seized from her home under a search warrant, alleging a violation of her s. 8 Charter rights.

The application challenged the warrant's validity, primarily through a Garofoli application, and the statutory basis for seeking a telewarrant.

The court applied the Debot criteria (credibility of informant, compelling nature of information, and police corroboration) to assess the warrant's sufficiency, considering redacted information and a judicial summary.

The court found the warrant valid and the telewarrant properly obtained, concluding no Charter violation occurred.

Consequently, the evidence was admissible, and T.A.E. was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

Shamar Cole, a 22-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of possession of 275.33g of crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The drugs were found during search warrants at his associated residence and a vehicle registered to him.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought two to two-and-a-half years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the dealing, lack of remorse evidenced by a Facebook post, and the presence of drug paraphernalia and cash.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth and lack of prior record.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized cash and a vehicle.

Two brothers were jointly charged with possession of cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal to trial based on surveillance evidence showing hand-to-hand transactions over two days and the subsequent discovery of drugs and cash at a residence where both accused were found.

The court applied the test for committal in circumstantial cases, examining whether a reasonable jury could draw inferences of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused to trial on all three counts.

Earl Zammit applied for a stay of proceedings, alleging an infringement of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, finding a total delay of approximately 36 months, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court.

The court determined that the delay was not attributable to the defence, nor were there exceptional circumstances or transitional exceptions to justify it.

Consequently, the application was granted, and the charges were stayed.

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.

The offender was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to traffic cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The case arose from a large-scale police investigation into multi‑kilogram drug trafficking in the Toronto area, during which the offender negotiated the sale of three kilograms of cocaine and was later found in possession of additional multi‑kilogram quantities of methamphetamine and thousands of MDMA pills.

The court characterized the offender as a high‑level commercial trafficker and emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing principles for large‑scale drug trafficking.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, strong family and community support, and evidence of rehabilitation potential.

A global sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was imposed, with concurrent sentences on all counts.