Brandt Holden Chu

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug trafficking and weapons offences, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found breaches of ss. 8 and 9 because the arresting officer's subjective belief for the arrest was not objectively reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's Grant analysis that would displace the deference owed to such determinations.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three counts under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to self-instruct on Vetrovec in relation to the co-accused's testimony and that the trial judge unevenly scrutinized the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting ample independent corroborative evidence supported the co-accused's testimony.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to perform a proper Gladue analysis, but the court found no error given the Gladue Writer Program's inability to prepare a report and the trial judge's careful consideration of the appellant's circumstances.

Both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.

This sentencing decision addresses the serious offence of trafficking fentanyl, highlighting the gravity of the crime and the moral blameworthiness of the offender, Jason Gallant, who pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking fentanyl in 2023.

The court emphasizes the national crisis posed by fentanyl abuse and the necessity for denunciation and deterrence in sentencing.

Despite mitigating factors such as the offender's addiction, prior rehabilitation efforts, and health issues, the court imposes a two-year penitentiary sentence, underscoring the repeated nature of the offences, trafficking for profit, and the offender's concerning attitude towards the harm caused by fentanyl trafficking.

Hanad Abdirizak Ahmed pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking fentanyl.

The court considered an Enhanced Presentence Report (EPSR) detailing the impact of anti-Black racism on the offender.

Aggravating factors included the gravity of fentanyl trafficking, the quantity involved (10.77 grams), and the repeated, profit-motivated "dial-a-dope" nature of the conduct.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, no prior record, struggles with addiction, strong family and community support, positive rehabilitative steps, and experience with anti-Black racism.

The Crown sought a three-year concurrent sentence, while the defence sought a two-year conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the deadly nature of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and deterrence, finding a conditional sentence inappropriate.

The defendant, Kelvon Clarke, was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime not exceeding $5,000.

Police executed a search warrant at an apartment, finding controlled substances and cash.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on video evidence showing Clarke entering the building with a distinctive purple bag, which was later found in the apartment containing the bulk of the drugs.

The court found Clarke guilty, concluding that the only reasonable inference based on the totality of the evidence was his knowledge and control of the drugs, either through physical possession, constructive possession, joint possession, or aiding.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) rights during the execution of a search warrant at an apartment where he was a found-in.

The police discovered approximately 1.3 kgs of fentanyl in the apartment and smaller quantities of drugs and cash on the applicant.

The applicant alleged police used excessive force by tackling and punching him, and conducted an unreasonable search.

The Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach due to a 30-minute delay in providing rights to counsel.

The court dismissed the other Charter claims, finding the police use of force and manner of detention were reasonable given the dynamic and potentially volatile situation.

The court declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the evidence under s. 24, concluding the physical evidence was not obtained as a result of the s. 10(b) breach and its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant, Ikenna Nwene, was charged with importing 461 grams of heroin.

The package was intercepted by authorities, duties were paid, and it cleared customs before a controlled delivery was attempted.

Nwene attended to pick up the package with a fake driver's license in the consignee's name but refused to take it when he suspected the officer was undercover.

The court found that the physical element of importing was completed when the package cleared customs.

Based on circumstantial evidence, including the fake ID, his actions at the DHL store, and his attempt to discard evidence, the court concluded that Nwene was involved in the scheme and knew the package contained a controlled substance.

He was found guilty of importing.

The defendant, Rapinder Bains, applied for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, arguing that police investigator DC Khan lacked reasonable suspicion when providing an opportunity to commit a drug trafficking offence.

The court found that DC Khan possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion, supported by a confidential human source (CHS) tip and prior text communications indicating drug trafficking activity associated with the target phone number.

The court emphasized that the defendant's unsolicited communication initiated the interaction and that the case did not involve random virtue-testing.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and a refusal from his examination for discovery in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The parties resolved the undertakings at the hearing.

The remaining issue was the plaintiff's refusal to produce his cellular phone call log for the 30 minutes prior to the accident.

The court ordered the production of the call log, finding it relevant to the defendant's pleaded allegation that the plaintiff was negligent by using his phone at the time of the collision, despite the plaintiff's denial under oath.