Christopher Greene

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a certiorari application challenging her committal for trial on charges of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and cultivating marijuana.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal, finding that there was evidence capable of supporting the inference that the appellant was working at the commercial grow-operation on the day of her arrest and that the evidence, considered as a whole, constituted some evidence of her involvement as a party in the alleged offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence from a trial decision rendered on June 29, 2015.

The conviction appeal was abandoned by the parties.

On the sentencing appeal, the parties agreed that the appropriate sentence was nine months, with credit for time spent on bail pending trial and appeal, as well as time spent in custody.

The Court of Appeal allowed the sentencing appeal and varied the sentence to time served, equivalent to nine months.

Dirk Inniss pleaded guilty to importing 19 kg of cocaine.

The sentencing hearing addressed his role in the drug hierarchy compared to a co-conspirator, Denise Edwards, and the impact of harsh pre-sentence detention conditions.

The court found Inniss's role comparable to Edwards's, but without the additional schemes she was involved in.

Despite Edwards receiving a 10-year sentence based on an early plea and joint submission, the court imposed a 10-year sentence on Inniss before credit for pre-sentence custody, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

This sentence was then reduced by one year due to particularly harsh pre-sentence detention conditions, including extensive lockdowns and denial of fresh air, resulting in a total sentence of 9 years.

After credit for pre-sentence custody, 53 months and 7 days remained to be served.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking approximately half a kilogram of heroin, the court determined the appropriate sentence within the established appellate range.

The defence argued that heroin trafficking sentences should be reduced because heroin is not demonstrably more harmful than cocaine or methamphetamine.

After reviewing expert evidence, historical arguments, and appellate jurisprudence, the court held that existing authorities establish an eight‑to‑twelve‑year range for trafficking in a half kilogram of heroin and that trial courts are not entitled to lower that range based on the record before them.

The court concluded that even if other drugs are similarly harmful, that would justify increasing sentences for those drugs rather than lowering heroin sentences.

Each offender received an eight‑year penitentiary sentence, with additional concurrent time for possession of proceeds of crime and a fine in lieu of forfeiture against one offender.

The appellant brought a summary conviction appeal challenging convictions and fines imposed for two violations of s. 65(1) of the Health of Animals Act arising from transporting and unloading a cow in a condition causing undue suffering.

The appellant argued that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for “undue suffering,” improperly relied on expert veterinary pathology evidence, and erred in failing to apply the Kienapple principle to stay one of the convictions.

The court held that the trial judge correctly applied the causation requirement clarified in Doyon v. Canada (Attorney General) and made supported findings that both the transportation and unloading independently caused undue suffering.

The court further held that the veterinary pathologist was properly permitted to give opinion evidence within her expertise and that the two offences were distinct and did not arise from the same transaction.

The appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police drug purchase.

An undercover officer testified that she purchased cocaine from a man matching the accused’s description using pre-recorded marked money, and surveillance officers identified the accused as the person involved in the transaction.

The defence called multiple civilian witnesses who stated the accused did not engage in a drug transaction and remained with them on the way to purchase pizza.

The court found that although the accused matched the description of the person observed by police, the marked $20 bill allegedly recovered from him was neither photographed nor preserved as evidence.

In the absence of this best evidence and given the competing testimony, the court concluded the Crown had not proven identity and guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.