Brigid Yee Wai Luke

This is an appeal from convictions under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act for aiding or abetting persons to possess a passport to contravene the Act and aiding or abetting illegal entry into Canada.

The appellant drove individuals to a border crossing, presenting Canadian passports that did not match the individuals, with Nigerian passports subsequently found.

The appellant challenged the admissibility of lay opinion identification evidence from border services officers, arguing a voir dire was required.

The Court of Appeal found no voir dire was necessary, as the evidence constituted admissible lay opinion based on direct observations.

The appellant also argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, which the Court found to be an error in narration, not substance, and thus not warranting appellate intervention.

Finally, the Court dismissed the unreasonable verdict argument, finding the circumstantial evidence of guilt overwhelming.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of evidence.

Specifically, the court upheld the trial judge's use of the appellant's general drug trafficking activities (including marijuana) as relevant to his involvement in cocaine trafficking, her holistic consideration of circumstantial evidence for constructive possession, and her rejection of speculative defence theories in the absence of the appellant's testimony.

The applicant, Tamara Bahlawan, brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence seized during a search of her residence, arguing that the search warrant breached her s. 8 Charter rights.

The warrant was issued based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied on confidential informers (CIs) and police surveillance.

The court found four material misrepresentations in the ITO regarding CI statements, which were corrected or excised.

However, the court determined that police surveillance sufficiently corroborated the CIs' tips, distinguishing the case from R. v. Liu.

The court also found that the information provided was sufficient for the issuing judge to assess the CIs' reliability, despite some boilerplate language and a preference for full disclosure of one CI's criminal record.

Ultimately, the reviewing judge concluded that a search warrant could reasonably have been issued on the corrected ITO.

The application to quash the warrant and exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Elia S. Awad was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking (cocaine) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered sentencing principles, mitigating factors (strict bail conditions, employment, family support, mental health issues) and aggravating factors (sophisticated mid-high level drug trafficker, extensive criminal record including prior drug offences).

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the Defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment, to be served concurrently for both charges, reduced by credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a net sentence of five years, one month, and nineteen days.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

This was a preliminary inquiry into 30 counts of criminal offences involving drug trafficking and firearm possession.

The Crown alleged that the two accused were engaged in a joint enterprise to traffic in street drugs over a two-month surveillance period.

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking, firearm offences, breach of recognizance, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The key issues were whether the evidence supported reasonable inferences of possession and control over drugs and cash found at various locations, and whether the accused had knowledge of and control over a handgun found at one accused's residence.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the court considered the appropriate sentence.

The offender played a secondary role in a buy‑bust operation involving approximately one ounce of cocaine and had limited criminal history, strong family support, and demonstrated rehabilitation since the offence.

The court rejected the argument that the Kienapple rule barred multiple convictions, finding trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking constituted distinct criminal wrongs.

After reviewing authorities on conditional sentences in drug trafficking cases and considering the principles of deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation, and parity with a co‑accused, the court concluded that the offender did not pose a danger to the community.

A conditional sentence served in the community was imposed with strict conditions.