B. Eberhard

The accused, an Indigenous member of the Oneida Nation of the Thames, was sentenced for possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences occurred while the accused was being processed for admission to a detention centre following a prior sentencing for assault.

The Crown sought 4 years custody while the defence sought 2 years.

The court imposed a sentence of 3½ years (42 months), with 15 months pre-sentence custody credited on a 1.5:1 basis, resulting in an additional 27 months custody.

The court applied Gladue principles recognizing the accused's Indigenous heritage and systemic background factors, including intergenerational trauma from residential schools, while maintaining that the serious nature of trafficking fentanyl in a custodial setting warranted a significant penitentiary sentence for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was arrested during an undercover 'buy and bust' drug operation after driving the target of the investigation to a pre-arranged drug transaction.

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence (cocaine and cash) seized during a search incident to arrest, arguing his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights were violated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for trafficking based on his act of transporting the target and the drugs to the transaction.

The court also found no breach of the right to counsel.

The accused was stopped for speeding and aggressive driving.

The officer formed reasonable grounds to believe the accused was impaired by a drug and arrested him.

A search incident to arrest revealed cocaine, a knife, and a crack pipe.

The accused brought a Charter motion alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights, seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The court dismissed the motion, finding the stop, detention, arrest, and search were lawful, and rights to counsel were provided without undue delay.

The court further held that even if breaches occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under the Grant framework.

The applicant, Cody McNeil, brought an application challenging the lawfulness of a search incident to his arrest for trespassing, arguing a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights and seeking exclusion of seized drugs (cannabis and methamphetamine) under s. 24(2).

Police arrested McNeil for trespassing after he re-entered a building from which he was banned.

During a search conducted in a secure police office, drugs were found.

The court found the initial search for officer safety was justified given the location's history of criminal activity and McNeil's criminal record, which included a weapons conviction.

The subsequent discovery of methamphetamine provided new grounds for arrest and justified the continuation of the search.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was sentenced on two charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine and one charge of fraud.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record spanning 26 years and had participated in the London Drug Treatment Court, where he made significant progress before relapsing and committing the offences while on bail.

The court imposed a sentence of 4 years in federal penitentiary on the drug trafficking charges and 2 months consecutive on the fraud charge, with credit for pre-trial custody and bail conditions.

The court emphasized the serious harm caused by crystal methamphetamine and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The applicant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine, hydromorphone, and cannabis marijuana while an inmate at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Center.

The central issue concerned missing video surveillance recordings of common areas within the facility.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging a violation of section 7 rights based on an unreasonable pre-charge delay and the loss of evidence.

The court found that the applicant's section 7 Charter rights were violated due to the negligent investigative approach and failure to preserve evidence, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead imposing a significant sentence reduction as an alternative remedy.

The applicant brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) seeking exclusion of drugs and other items seized following his arrest for possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him and that the subsequent searches of his person, vehicle, and backpack were unlawful, breaching ss. 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court held that, considering the totality of the circumstances including confidential informant tips, corroborating surveillance, and the observation of a distinctive backpack linked to drug trafficking, the arresting officer had objectively reasonable and probable grounds.

Even if a Charter breach had been established, the court concluded that the Grant factors would favour admission of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.