C. Hepburn

The accused, Allan Clayton Eggleton, was charged with 17 counts related to drug trafficking (fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine), possession of proceeds of crime, and various firearms and weapons offences.

The Crown presented evidence from police surveillance, a search warrant execution at the accused's alleged residence, and expert testimony on drug trafficking and weapons.

The accused testified, denying residence at the apartment where items were found and providing an explanation for the cash seized.

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding residence and the source of the cash, finding his explanations inconsistent and implausible.

Based on the totality of the evidence, including surveillance, seized items, and expert testimony, the court found the accused guilty on all 17 counts, concluding that he was in possession of the drugs, firearms, ammunition, and drug paraphernalia for the purpose of trafficking, and that the cash was proceeds of crime.

The accused, Jonathan Green, brought an application challenging the jury panel for his sexual assault trial, alleging it was not representative of the District of Rainy River's population and thus non-compliant with the Juries Act.

The application was summarily dismissed as the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence in *R. v. Kokopenace* emphasizes that representativeness focuses on the jury selection process, not the resulting composition of the jury roll or panel.

The court found no evidentiary basis to attack the selection process, and further, applied the principles from *R. v. Cody* regarding summary dismissal of applications lacking a reasonable prospect of success.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The alleged deficiencies included failure to allow the appellant to testify, inadequate note-taking, failure to seek severance of charges, failure to provide disclosure, and inadequate cross-examination.

The court applied the test for ineffective assistance requiring proof that counsel’s performance fell below reasonable competence and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The court found trial counsel was experienced, met with the client multiple times, considered strategic decisions carefully, and conducted a substantial cross-examination.

Any error in not providing a copy of the disclosure caused no prejudice because its contents were reviewed with the appellant.

The appellant failed to demonstrate either incompetence or resulting unfairness in the trial process.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered at trial for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The trial judge had rejected the defence of non‑insane automatism but nevertheless acquitted on the basis that the accused lacked the requisite mens rea due to a confused mental state preceding alcohol consumption.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge erred in law by finding that confusion pre‑dated the drinking without any evidentiary basis.

The accused had not adduced evidence showing that the alcohol consumption was unknowing or involuntary as required under the presumption discussed in R. v. King.

The appeal was allowed and convictions were entered on both counts, with further submissions invited regarding the Kienapple principle and sentence.