The appellant pleaded guilty to a drug offence at trial, after which the trial judge entered a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment arising from a dial-a-dope operation.
The Court of Appeal set aside the stay and remitted the matter for sentencing, finding the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence and misapplied the legal test for entrapment.
The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the phrase "enters a verdict of guilty" in s. 691(2)(b) of the Criminal Code encompasses an order setting aside a permanent stay where that order is tantamount to entering a verdict of guilty, thereby grounding the appellant's appeal as of right.
Applying the framework from R. v. Ahmad, the Court held that the police had reasonable suspicion, before placing the call, that the phone number was being used for drug dealing, based on a detailed tip corroborated by vehicle and licence plate information linked to a person with an extensive history of suspected dial-a-dope activity.
The appeal was dismissed, a verdict of guilty entered, and the matter remitted for sentencing.
