Avik Kumar Ghosh

Shamar Cole was found guilty by a jury of 19 counts related to drug possession and firearm offences, and subsequently six counts of possessing a firearm while prohibited.

The charges stemmed from his arrest where he discarded a backpack containing large quantities of various drugs (cocaine, fentanyl, crack, methamphetamine) and three loaded, prohibited handguns (two converted to automatic, all with overcapacity magazines) from a condominium balcony.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 17 years, while the Defence argued for 5 years, emphasizing the jury's verdict of simple possession rather than possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the arsenal of weapons, the large quantity of drugs, discarding items in a public place, and the offender's significant criminal record with prior firearm prohibitions and a bail breach.

Mitigating factors included a difficult childhood and harsh pre-trial detention conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, with various counts running concurrently and consecutively, and applied pre-sentence custody credits, resulting in 6 years and 2 months remaining.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA, and forfeiture were also granted.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence and vehicle on the grounds of a breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (unreasonable search and seizure).

The applicant raised three arguments: (1) the ITO failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe trafficking had occurred; (2) the ITO failed to establish reasonable grounds that evidence would be found at the residence; and (3) the warrant was facially invalid for authorizing searches of two separate independent places on a single warrant.

The court rejected all three arguments and found the warrant valid, admitting the evidence obtained from the search.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and MDMA to an undercover officer contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant raised the defence of entrapment seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court found that police had a reasonable suspicion the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking based on a tip from a known confidential source that was compelling and corroborated through database searches and social media verification.

The court also found the police were acting pursuant to a bona fide inquiry into a cell phone number reasonably suspected of facilitating drug trafficking.

The defendant's testimony that he was pressured into selling cocaine was rejected as not credible.

The entrapment defence was dismissed.

The applicant sought to exclude drug evidence obtained by police, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police unlawfully questioned the applicant, conducted an unreasonable safety search, and delayed providing the right to counsel.

Given the flagrant nature and significant impact of these breaches, the court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the dismissal of all charges.

The accused was stopped at a RIDE checkpoint and arrested for driving under suspension after failing an approved screening device test.

A search incident to arrest revealed crack cocaine in his possession.

The defence sought exclusion of the cocaine evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging three breaches: arbitrary arrest under s. 9, unreasonable search under s. 8, and failure to provide complete right to counsel information under s. 10(b).

The court found no Charter breaches and admitted the evidence.

The accused was found guilty of possession of cocaine.