Chris Greenwood

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.

Two consolidated appeals arising from dial-a-dope drug investigations in which undercover officers, acting on unsubstantiated tips, telephoned phone numbers alleged to be associated with drug trafficking and arranged purchases of cocaine.

The majority affirmed the entrapment framework established in R. v. Mack and R. v. Barnes, holding that police must form reasonable suspicion — whether individualized to a person or tethered to a sufficiently particularized virtual location such as a phone number — before offering an accused the opportunity to commit a criminal offence.

In the first appellant's case, the majority upheld his convictions, finding that reasonable suspicion had crystallized during the call before the opportunity to traffic was extended, as the accused's use of drug-subculture slang corroborated the tip.

In the second appellant's case, the majority found entrapment had occurred because the opportunity to traffic was provided before reasonable suspicion was established, and accordingly reinstated the stay of proceedings.

The minority would have revised the bona fide inquiry prong to require only a factually-grounded investigation into a tightly circumscribed location motivated by genuine law enforcement purposes, under which both appeals would have been dismissed.