Christopher Alexander Kalantzis

The appellant was convicted of five counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking (fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, hydromorphone, and methylphenidate) and one count of simple possession (buprenorphine), and sentenced to three years' imprisonment.

On appeal, she raised five grounds including errors in the directed verdict ruling, unreasonable verdict, refusal to consider sole possession by a co-accused, errors in the Charter s. 10(b) analysis, and fitness of sentence.

The Court of Appeal assumed without deciding that additional right-to-counsel breaches occurred but found the s. 24(2) balancing under Grant did not support exclusion, noting no systemic or deliberate disregard for Charter rights and a lack of causal connection between the breaches and the discovery of evidence.

The remaining conviction grounds were dismissed as attempts to parse the trial judge's reasons in search of error.

The conviction and sentence appeals were both dismissed.

The applicant sought relief in an appeal before the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The court reviewed the record and applied the governing legal and procedural standards, including deference to factual and discretionary determinations where required.

The matter concluded with the following disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Following execution of search warrants at two Toronto residences, the accused challenged the admissibility of seized drugs, cash, and paraphernalia under ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court held that the ITO, after amplification and excision, could not support the Keele Street warrant but did support the Jane Street warrant; it also found breaches arising from the police failure to fully inform the accused of the drug investigation, failure to facilitate timely access to counsel of choice, and a seventeen-month delay in filing the Jane Street Report to a Justice under s. 489.1 of the Criminal Code.

Applying Grant, the court excluded the Keele Street evidence but admitted the Jane Street evidence.

On the trial proper, the Crown's case on possession rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the court found a reasonable inference remained that another resident had hidden the drugs without the accused's knowledge.

The charges were dismissed.

The court sentenced Nicola Owen, convicted of importing almost 8 kilograms of heroin into Canada, to 9 years’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge considered the low purity of the heroin (18%), Owen’s positive presentence report, lack of criminal record, health issues, and other mitigating factors.

The court found that the low purity and unique circumstances justified a sentence below the usual 12–17 year range for such offences.

The decision discusses the relevance of drug purity to sentencing and the importance of proportionality under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant, Rapinder Bains, appealed convictions for drug-related offences, arguing that the trial judge erred by applying a less onerous standard for entrapment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding that it was open to the trial judge to infer from the Agreed Statement of Facts that the officer had the requisite subjective belief to proceed.

The appeal and the sentence appeal were both dismissed.

This decision addresses the constitutional validity of a search warrant issued based on information from a confidential source (C.S.) and corroborated by police investigation.

The court analyzed the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain (ITO) under the test established in R. v. Debot, focusing on the credibility, compelling nature, and corroboration of the C.S.'s information.

The judge rejected the accused's argument that exclusion of evidence from a prior unlawful search undermined the warrant's validity.

The court found the warrant was reasonably granted, emphasizing the detailed, recent, and corroborated information provided by the C.S. and police, and upheld the admission of evidence obtained.

The court sentenced Spiro Rusha to five years' imprisonment for multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including fentanyl, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as possession of property obtained by crime.

The decision reviews the aggravating and mitigating factors, the circumstances of the offences and the offender, and the applicable sentencing principles and ranges.

The court found that a penitentiary sentence was required, rejecting the defence request for a conditional sentence, and imposed ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

The accused, Spiro Rusha, was charged with multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the quantity and variety of drugs seized, substantial cash, and drug paraphernalia.

The defence argued for personal use and legitimate income.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, rejecting his explanations for drug possession and cash.

Applying principles of circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the substances were for trafficking and the money was proceeds of crime.

Rusha was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, Mark Thompson, faced charges for possession of Schedule 1 and 3 substances for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He challenged his warrantless arrest and subsequent search, arguing violations of his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, as the confidential informant's tip was vague and insufficiently corroborated by surveillance.

The police notes were found to be misleading, exacerbating the seriousness of the Charter breach.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the accused's liberty outweighed society's interest in the admission of the evidence, leading to its exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused brought Charter motions (ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b)) to exclude drug and money evidence in a trial for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found no s. 7 violation regarding police body-worn camera (BWC) muting or late activation, as no evidence was "lost" and no prejudice was demonstrated.

However, the court found s. 10(a) and 10(b) violations due to delayed and incomplete advisement of rights upon detention and arrest.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that the evidence should not be excluded, weighing the seriousness of the breaches (moderate, good faith, fluid situation) against the minimal impact on the accused's Charter interests (no incriminating statements, evidence discoverable) and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious drug offences on their merits.

The motions to exclude evidence were dismissed, and the accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, filed a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest and search, which were based on confidential informant (CI) information.

The Crown invoked Step 6 of the Garofoli procedure to allow the court to consider redacted CI information, provided a sufficient judicial summary was disclosed to the defence.

The court assessed the sufficiency of the judicial summary, considering defence concerns regarding the recency of information, the CI's criminal record, the reliability of previous CI information, and the specificity of personal identifying information and modus operandi details.

The court found the updated judicial summary sufficient to enable the accused to challenge the grounds for his arrest while protecting the CI's identity.

The applicant, Spiro Rusha, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search warrant execution, arguing the warrant lacked reasonable grounds and the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading.

He also challenged the lawfulness of his arrest under s. 9 of the Charter and alleged excessive force during the arrest under s. 7.

The court dismissed all applications, finding the search warrant valid based on credible, compelling, and corroborated confidential informant information, and that the affiant did not intentionally mislead the issuing justice.

The court also found reasonable grounds for the arrest and that the force used was not excessive given the circumstances.

The accused was convicted of multiple firearms offences and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after fleeing police and hiding two loaded handguns and 127.75 grams of fentanyl in a residential backyard.

The court considered the accused's serious criminal record, including prior convictions for armed robbery and murder, and the significant danger posed to the public.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced to 13 years and 2 months after crediting pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

Nitish Verma was convicted by a jury of importing 13.739 kg of opium.

The Crown sought a nine-year sentence, while the defence argued for seven years, citing mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of criminal record, positive community contributions, and strong support network.

The court considered sentencing principles, including general deterrence and denunciation, and the less addictive nature of opium compared to other Schedule I substances.

Despite the large quantity of drugs and profit motive being aggravating factors, the court found the offender to be a courier, not a principal, and noted his high rehabilitative prospects.

A sentence of seven years was imposed, along with a DNA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a forfeiture order.

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 was charged with 10 counts relating to the possession of two loaded handguns and 127.75 grams of fentanyl.

The charges arose after a high-speed police chase ended in a collision, from which a man fled on foot, hiding the firearms and drugs in a nearby backyard before being arrested.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the fleeing man.

The court found that the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, clothing, and DNA, overwhelmingly established that the accused was the man who fled the vehicle and possessed the contraband.

The accused were charged with robbery, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, and breach of probation following a hotel room invasion.

The victims were two women who had recently started their own escort business, cutting out the accused and their associate.

The court found both accused guilty of robbery, as they participated in a joint plan to steal from the victims while one accused was armed with a baton.

One accused was found guilty of receiving a material benefit from sexual services due to his involvement in his girlfriend's escort business, while the other was acquitted of this charge as sharing drugs and alcohol did not constitute a material benefit.

The accused bound by probation was also found guilty of breaching it.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to comply with a demand for a roadside breath sample, arguing that the trial judge failed to consider material evidence regarding the equivocal nature of his refusal.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge conducted a careful analysis of the evidence, including the officer's cross-examination, and was entitled to conclude that the appellant's final response constituted a clear and unequivocal refusal, despite earlier potentially conditional statements.

The court affirmed that a trial judge is not required to recite every piece of evidence or make a finding on exact words, as long as the reasons are intelligible and allow for meaningful appellate review.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device in compliance with a demand made by a police officer under subsection 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the demand for breath testing was valid, the testing was conducted forthwith despite a 30-minute delay caused by the unavailability of an approved screening device, and that a technical breach of Charter section 10(b) rights regarding the failure to communicate the free legal aid telephone number was admissible under subsection 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with assault following an altercation at a hot dog stand at approximately 2:00 a.m.

The Crown alleged that the accused initiated the incident by mocking the complainant's voice in a homophobic manner, then punched the complainant in the face at the hot dog stand, chased him into a nearby laneway, knocked him down, and continued striking him until bystanders intervened.

The accused claimed the incident was mutual banter that escalated when the complainant pushed him down, and that he punched the complainant once in self-defence before becoming involved in a general scrum.

The court found the accused guilty, accepting the credible evidence of an independent witness and rejecting the accused's account as incredible and materially contradicted by reliable evidence.