Carol Letman

The accused, Faith Chinwendu Uzondu, was charged with importing heroin, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and two counts of conspiracy related to heroin.

The heroin was found in a package delivered to her home.

The accused admitted involvement in various fraudulent activities but denied knowledge of the package's drug contents, claiming she believed it contained fraudulent credit cards or passports.

The court rejected the accused's testimony due to numerous lies and inconsistencies.

While acquitted of the importation and conspiracy charges due to reasonable doubt regarding her involvement at the time of importation and lack of evidence linking her to other packages, she was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court concluded that the accused was willfully blind to the package's contents, or had actual knowledge, given her anxiousness to dispose of the package and her general indifference to the nature of illegal items as long as she was paid.

The accused, Brandon Cleland, was charged with the robbery of a taxi driver, Tahir Khan, in Mississauga.

The primary issue was the proof of identity, as the victim did not identify the accused in court.

The Crown relied on photographs from a malfunctioning in-car taxi camera system, police recognition of the accused from these images, and comparison with the accused's Facebook photos and physical appearance.

The defence challenged the occurrence of a robbery and the reliability of the identification evidence.

The court found the victim's testimony credible and, despite the camera malfunction, gave significant weight to the images due to corroborating factors.

The court concluded that the images depicted the accused, supported by police recognition, facial features, tattoos, and accessories, and found the accused guilty of robbery.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and with failing to appear in court contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case for possession rested solely on the arresting officer's claim to have detected the smell of marijuana emanating from the accused's vehicle.

The court found the officer's testimony regarding the strength and permeability of the odour to be implausible and internally inconsistent.

The court concluded that the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds and violated the accused's Charter rights against arbitrary detention and unreasonable search.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

On the fail to appear charge, the court found that the Crown failed to prove the requisite mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, as the accused's testimony regarding his mistaken belief that his lawyer had rescheduled the trial date raised a reasonable doubt.

Both charges were dismissed.

Two offenders were sentenced after a jury conviction for importing cocaine into Canada contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Each offender attempted to import nearly four kilograms of high‑purity cocaine concealed in luggage after travelling from Panama.

The court reviewed the established six‑to‑eight‑year sentencing range for first‑offender couriers importing multiple kilograms of cocaine, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Arguments that potential immigration consequences for one offender should justify a sentence below the range were rejected as speculative and inconsistent with proportionality principles.

Considering mitigating factors including lack of criminal records, the court imposed custodial sentences near the low end of the range.

The accused was charged with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and theft of hydroelectricity contrary to the Criminal Code.

He was arrested at a residential property where a substantial marijuana grow operation was discovered.

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence of the grow operation, arguing the search was illegal.

The Crown raised a threshold issue of standing, contending the accused could not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched.

The court found the accused had not established on a balance of probabilities that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search.

The accused was arrested after police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger and found him in possession of crack cocaine, marijuana, and oxycodone.

Police officers, acting on suspicion of a drug transaction observed at a known drug house, conducted an investigative detention.

During the detention, the officer forcefully removed the accused from the vehicle and threw him to the ground, exposing narcotics in his underwear.

The central issue was whether the officer's actions violated the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and if so, whether the evidence should be excluded.

The court found that the officer's conduct constituted a de facto arrest without reasonable and probable grounds, an unreasonable search, and a violation of the right to counsel.

The evidence was excluded, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude statements overheard by a border officer while the accused was speaking on a cell phone in an airport baggage area.

The defence argued that admission of the statements would infringe the accused’s privacy rights under ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court reviewed jurisprudence on expectations of privacy and investigative practices at border crossings.

It held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy when speaking on a cell phone in a public airport area where the conversation could be overheard.

The application to exclude the statements was dismissed and the evidence was ruled admissible at trial.