Catherine Rhinelander

The accused pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

Prior to sentencing, the court found two Charter violations regarding a wiretap intercept of a solicitor-client call and a breach of the right to counsel upon arrest, but dismissed a challenge to a strip search.

At sentencing, the court weighed the serious aggravating factors of the offences against exceptional mitigating factors, including the accused's complete reformation while on bail, his successful music career, his community service mentoring at-risk youth, and the Charter breaches.

The court concluded that a conditional sentence of two years less a day was appropriate to address denunciation and deterrence while supporting the accused's rehabilitation.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application alleging that police unlawfully intercepted calls between him and his lawyers during a wiretap investigation, violating section 8 of the Charter.

The court found that while two of the three impugned calls did not violate the authorization's minimization terms, one call to the applicant's lawyer was unlawfully intercepted.

However, the court declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the wiretap evidence under sections 24(1) or 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was isolated and did not impact trial fairness.

Instead, the court ordered a mandatory injunction requiring the police to implement new protocols for blocking lawyers' phone numbers upon a target's arrest.

The applicant, facing drug and firearm charges, brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) during his arrests.

The Crown conceded violations of sections 8 and 9 regarding the "no-knock" entry during the second arrest but argued the delay in access to counsel was reasonable.

The court found that the police's unannounced entry into the applicant's home to execute a Feeney warrant, without judicial authorization for such entry and without exigent circumstances, violated his section 7 and 8 Charter rights.

The court found the delay in access to counsel was not unreasonable in the circumstances of both arrests.

As a remedy for the Charter violations related to the Feeney warrant execution, the court granted a partial stay of proceedings, specifically staying the firearm-related charges, but allowed the drug trafficking charges to proceed.

The applicant, Daveion Brown, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay, arguing the total delay of 797 days (26 months and 6 days) exceeded the Jordan ceiling.

The Crown contended that defence delay and exceptional circumstances (discrete events, case complexity) justified the delay.

The court found 92 days of defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 705 days (23.2 months), which still exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

While acknowledging the case's complexity, the court rejected the Crown's arguments for discrete events and found the Crown's prosecution plan, despite a significant conflict-of-interest issue, was not unreasonable in minimizing delay for this complex case.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

Devonte Blair pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted handgun, possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl, and breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the combination of drugs and a loaded weapon, the involvement of fentanyl, and the offender's repeat weapons history.

Mitigating factors included his youth, disadvantaged background, guilty plea (which saved court resources and waived arguable Charter issues), and the increased risk of infection due to the COVID-19 pandemic during his incarceration.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality and similarity to comparable cases.

A notional sentence of 75 months (65 months concurrent for drug and weapon offences, 10 months consecutive for breach of prohibition) was imposed.

After applying 1.5:1 "Summers" credit for 838 days of presentence custody (42 months) and "Duncan" credit for harsh conditions (18 months), the net sentence remaining to be served was 15 months.

A 12-month probation, DNA order, and lifetime section 109 order were also imposed.

BMD, detained since October 2018 on firearm and drug-related offences, sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He proposed a strengthened release plan including house arrest, two sureties, and GPS electronic monitoring, and argued the COVID-19 pandemic favored his release.

The court found the pandemic irrelevant to the secondary ground but relevant to the tertiary ground.

The strengthened release plan, particularly electronic monitoring and responsible sureties, addressed public safety concerns under the secondary ground.

On the tertiary ground, despite serious charges, the robust release plan and the public health imperative to de-populate correctional facilities due to COVID-19 led the court to conclude that continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence.

BMD was ordered released on strict conditions.

The offenders, both members of the 'Young Buck Killas' street gang, were convicted of various firearms and drug trafficking offences committed for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of their extensive criminal records, gang affiliation, and the nationwide scope of the drug enterprise against minimal mitigating factors.

The court sentenced one offender to 12 years and 1 month and the other to 28 months, after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered delayed parole eligibility for both offenders, requiring them to serve at least half of their sentences.

The accused was convicted of multiple offences including committing offences for the benefit of a criminal organization, instructing the commission of offences for a criminal organization, firearms possession and transfer offences, and trafficking in heroin.

The evidence, largely derived from wiretaps and surveillance, established that the accused was a leader of a street gang involved in organized drug trafficking and firearms activity across multiple jurisdictions.

The court considered aggravating factors including the scale of the trafficking enterprise, leadership role within the organization, and involvement of firearms, as well as mitigating factors including youth, lack of prior record, and expressions of remorse.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and considering the totality principle, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence.

Thirty‑three accused sought exclusion of wiretap evidence arising from “Project Marvel,” a large police investigation into shootings, robbery, and organized gang activity in Toronto.

The applicants argued the authorizations violated s. 8 of the Charter because the police failed to establish “investigative necessity” under s. 186(1)(b) of the Criminal Code and improperly named certain individuals as “known persons” under s. 185(1)(e).

The court applied the deferential Garofoli review standard and held the authorizing judge had a reasonable basis to conclude investigative necessity existed despite alternative investigative techniques such as cell‑phone analysis.

The court further held that the challenged individuals were properly named as targets because interception of their communications could assist the investigation and the statutory threshold is low.

A separate sub‑facial challenge relating to the search of a backyard shed and the curtilage doctrine was also rejected.

This is a ruling on committal for trial following a three-month preliminary inquiry into Project Marvel, a police investigation into drug and firearm trafficking by members of a criminal organization known as the Young Buck Killers (YBK).

Nine defendants faced sixty-four counts including trafficking and possession of cocaine and other drugs, trafficking and possession of firearms, and conspiracy charges.

The Crown alleged that most defendants committed these offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the YBK criminal organization.

The court applied the test for committal established in R. v. Arcuri, requiring that there be admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit most defendants to trial on the charges, though some counts were discharged where the evidence was insufficient or speculative.

The court's analysis focused on whether the predicate offences were sufficiently connected to the criminal organization and whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.

The accused was convicted of attempted arson and pleaded guilty to two counts of mischief for his participation in vandalizing and attempting to set fire to police cruisers during the G20 Summit riots in Toronto.

The Crown sought a 20-24 month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a 6-9 month conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate due to the accused's lack of insight, his conduct while on bail, and the paramount need for denunciation and general deterrence for public riot offences.

The accused was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment (less 2 months' credit for bail conditions), followed by 3 years' probation, 150 hours of community service, and a restitution order of $100 per month.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of mischief over $5,000 committed during the G20 summit in Toronto in June 2010.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of six to nine months followed by probation, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 15 months with house arrest.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence of imprisonment (6 months on each count, consecutive) followed by 18 months of probation, balancing the objectives of denunciation and deterrence with the offender's status as a youthful first offender and his demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.