Catherine Szpulak

The defendant was charged with seven counts arising from the execution of Cannabis Act search warrants at two residential properties on November 3, 2021.

The charges included unlawful possession of cannabis for purposes of distribution and sale at both properties, and unlicensed possession of firearms and a prohibited device at the rural property.

The defendant was found present at the rural property when police executed the warrant.

The Crown relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence to establish possession.

The court found that while the Crown established the presence of substantial quantities of cannabis and firearms at both locations, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed these items.

The court acquitted on all counts, finding reasonable doubts regarding the defendant's knowledge and control over the items, the handling of evidence by police, and the possibility of indirect DNA transfer.

The accused sought leave to cross-examine Detective Constable William Crawford, the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) affidavit used to secure search warrants under the Cannabis Act.

The accused was charged with three counts under the Cannabis Act and six counts under the Criminal Code related to unlicensed cannabis possession and firearms offences.

The court considered five proposed areas of cross-examination: hemp checks conducted, ability to differentiate cannabis from hemp plants, interpretation of monitored conversations, failure to include certain surveillance dates, and alleged failures to be full and frank in specific paragraphs of the ITO.

The court granted leave for cross-examination regarding hemp checks and the basis for belief about plant identification, but denied leave for the other three areas.

The applicant, Matthew John Blumenstock, sought to exclude evidence seized from his residence under section 8 of the Charter, arguing that the search warrant was issued without sufficient grounds linking him or the property to drug offences.

The court reviewed the investigative background, the Information to Obtain (ITO), and the legal standards for issuing a search warrant.

Justice Spencer Nicholson found that, considering the totality of the evidence—including surveillance, phone records, and the presence of suspicious cardboard boxes—there were reasonable grounds to believe that illicit cannabis would be found at the property.

The application was dismissed.

Jian Chen was charged with trafficking one kilogram of ketamine.

The case involved a complex police investigation where Chen was not the initial target but was observed transferring ketamine to the target of the investigation.

Chen challenged the admissibility of evidence on the basis of breaches of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b), specifically delays and failures in providing timely and effective rights to counsel due to language barriers and police procedural shortcomings.

The court found breaches of these rights but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, considering the police acted in good faith and the breaches were contextually minor.

The court convicted Chen of trafficking, emphasizing the importance of reasonable police diligence in facilitating access to counsel of choice, especially in multilingual contexts.

The accused, Dennis Mensah and Marvin Nyarko Mensah, were sentenced following a judge-alone trial where Dennis was found guilty of firearms and drug trafficking offences (fentanyl and carfentanil), and Marvin was found guilty of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs, the presence of a loaded firearm (for Dennis), and the sophistication of the operation.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, social context evidence of anti-black racism and growing up in a high-crime, low-income area, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay some firearms charges for Dennis.

Dennis received a total sentence of 4.5 years, and Marvin received 5.5 years, with credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included lifetime weapons prohibitions and forfeiture of seized items.

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.

In a criminal trial, the defendant, Muhammad Hassan, challenged the admissibility of evidence (firearms, magazines, and cocaine) obtained by police, alleging multiple Charter violations.

The court found that the police engaged in serious misconduct, including fabricating evidence to justify an arbitrary arrest (s. 9), conducting unlawful searches (s. 8), and systemically failing to provide privacy for legal consultations (s. 10(b)).

Despite the serious nature of the charges, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the egregious nature of the police conduct and its impact on the accused's rights.

As a result, the Crown was unable to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the defendant's acquittal on all counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police found 200 grams of cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia in a safe in his bedroom.

The offender was a 24-year-old first-time offender who had complied with bail conditions and made significant rehabilitative efforts, including completing his electrician apprenticeship.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, finding that exceptional mitigating circumstances warranted a sentence outside the usual range, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The accused, two brothers, were charged with various drug trafficking, firearms, and proceeds of crime offences following a police investigation.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused had knowledge and control of contraband found in secret compartments in two vehicles and cash found in an apartment.

The court found both accused guilty of the offences relating to the vehicles, concluding that their exclusive or near-exclusive use of the vehicles and the presence of personal items in the secret compartments left no other reasonable inference than guilt.

However, both accused were acquitted of possessing the cash found in the apartment, as other individuals had access to the unit, raising a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a 15-year-old complainant following a social gathering at his condominium.

The complainant alleged the accused forcibly raped her in his bedroom, while the accused denied any sexual or physical contact.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found that while parts of the complainant's evidence were compelling, inconsistencies and contextual circumstances, combined with the accused's relatively unshaken denial, left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence of drugs seized at the time of his arrest, alleging breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

The court found three s. 10(b) breaches: two instances of police failing to hold off questioning and an unreasonable 40-minute delay in providing access to counsel at the police division.

Applying the Grant factors for s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the court found the breaches serious but not systemic, the impact on the accused's Charter interests relatively minor due to no causal connection to the evidence, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favored inclusion as the evidence was reliable.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

This ruling addresses a motion by defence counsel to withdraw from a criminal case after the accused, Juan Chua, pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking but subsequently failed to appear for sentencing.

The Crown took no position on the motion.

The court, applying the discretionary factors for counsel withdrawal outlined in *Cunningham v. Lilles*, denied the motion.

The judge emphasized that the accused was at a crucial stage of the proceedings (sentencing for a serious offence), counsel still held valid instructions, and denying withdrawal was in the best interest of the administration of justice, particularly given the potential for an in absentia sentencing and a lengthy custodial sentence without representation.

The accused, Muhammad Hassan, applied for a bail review after being detained on charges of possession of a loaded restricted firearm and cocaine for trafficking.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, as prior drug-related charges had been acquitted or stayed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed sureties (brother-in-law and family friend) and electronic monitoring plan were insufficient to address the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court emphasized the seriousness of the current charges, the applicant's history of bail breaches while on prior release, and the limited effectiveness of electronic monitoring without strong supervision.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought an application under ss. 8, 9, 10(b) and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence found in a satchel when he was arrested.

The court found that the police did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him based on a confidential informant tip and ambiguous surveillance, resulting in a s. 9 breach.

The subsequent search of his person and satchel was therefore unlawful, breaching s. 8.

The police also delayed implementing his right to counsel for over four hours, breaching s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2).

The applicant sought a bail review to vacate a prior detention order and be released under revised terms, citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change in circumstances.

The court found the pandemic constituted a material change, warranting a de novo hearing.

However, the application was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate that his continued detention was not necessary on both secondary and tertiary grounds, given his history of non-compliance, the unsuitability of proposed sureties, the strength of the Crown's case, and the gravity of the offences.

The court also found that the pandemic circumstances did not sufficiently mitigate the risks to public safety or confidence in the administration of justice.

The offender pled guilty to possession of cocaine and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the extreme danger of fentanyl as an aggravating factor, balanced against the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, guilty pleas, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court determined an 18-month sentence was appropriate.

After applying 1.5:1 credit for 449 days of pre-sentence custody, which included frequent lockdowns due to staff shortages, the offender had served the equivalent of 22 months.

The offender was sentenced to one day in custody followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon after striking the complainant on the back of the head with a drinking glass at a bar.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while there was an air of reality to the self-defence claim based on the accused's evidence regarding her anxiety and prior abusive relationships, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused's response was grossly disproportionate to the threat posed.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm, with the assault with a weapon charge stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

Sentencing was adjourned.