Avik Kumar Ghosh

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found over 1.1 kilograms of cocaine and $65,000 in his garage.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 26 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court noted the offender was a youthful, first-time offender who had made exceptional efforts toward rehabilitation, including completing a business program and securing employment.

Finding that a conditional sentence would meet the objectives of denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's rehabilitation, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation.

Police responding to a dropped 911 call entered the wrong residence in exigent circumstances and discovered an operating pill-press drug laboratory.

The accused challenged only the brief pre-arrest detention and delayed right-to-counsel advice, but the court held the officers' actions were reasonable in a dynamic public-safety search; alternatively, any technical breach would not justify exclusion under s. 24(2).

On the merits, the court held the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the laboratory and possessed the drugs and equipment, rejecting a mere-presence defence.

Findings of guilt were entered on the drug and one probation count, while two other counts were dismissed on Crown concession.

The defendant sought a directed verdict of not guilty at the close of the Crown's case on drug-production, possession-for-the-purpose, probation breach, and ammunition-storage counts.

Applying the directed-verdict test and the limited weighing approach for circumstantial cases, the court held that the evidence was capable of supporting reasonable inferences that the defendant was a participant in a large-scale operating drug lab and was residing at the address contrary to probation.

The court distinguished authorities cautioning against any presumption arising from mere occupancy, emphasizing the scale, visibility, and active operation of the lab, the defendant's sole presence in the residence, and documents linking him to the home.

The application for dismissal was therefore denied.

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 offender, a 20-year-old mid-level trafficker, was convicted of possessing fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Crown sought an 11.5-year global sentence, while the defence sought 6 to 8.5 years.

The court emphasized the extreme danger of fentanyl and loaded handguns, imposing consecutive sentences for the drug and firearm offences.

After applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 9 years and 9 months (117 months), less credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of drugs, cash, telephones, and a loaded prohibited firearm seized after a surveillance-based arrest for drug trafficking.

The court held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds based on confidential informant information corroborated by multiple brief transactions consistent with street-level trafficking, viewed in the totality of the circumstances.

The gunpoint arrest was justified by officer safety concerns, including intelligence relating to prior firearm allegations and the nature of the suspected offences.

The court further held there was no breach of ss. 10(a) or 10(b), as the reasons for arrest were sufficiently conveyed, the brief delay in cautioning was justified by scene and fentanyl-related safety concerns, and private access to counsel was facilitated at the first practical opportunity at the station.

The application was dismissed.

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 Crown brought an application for forfeiture of a $100,000 recognizance after the accused breached his bail conditions by leaving his residence without his designated surety.

The surety, the accused's common-law wife, testified that she believed the accused was at work and was unaware he was meeting his ex-girlfriend.

The court found the surety was not complicit and that her financial circumstances had deteriorated significantly since the pledge.

Applying the factors from Horvath, the court exercised its discretion to excuse the surety from the pledge due to extreme hardship, but held the accused liable for the full amount.

The Crown brought an application to admit the video statements of two accused, Vickerson and Fairbarn, obtained during a large-scale fraud and drug trafficking investigation.

Fairbarn also applied to exclude her statements under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found Vickerson's statements were voluntary and admissible, as he was properly advised of his rights, spoke to duty counsel, and chose to answer questions.

However, the court found Fairbarn's statements were not voluntary due to a combination of factors, including an unrecorded conversation with a detective who allegedly offered inducements, and a failure to fully advise her of her jeopardy regarding the trafficking investigation.

Fairbarn's statements were excluded.

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.