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.
