Christopher Walsh

The Attorney General for Ontario and the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario (CLA) sought leave to intervene in an upcoming appeal concerning the scope of the actus reus of importing contraband.

The Attorney General sought to argue the impact of the definition on provincial prosecutions of importing firearms and child pornography.

The CLA sought to argue that extending the actus reus beyond the immediate entry point disproportionately impacts racialized communities, relying on social context evidence.

The court granted both applications for leave to intervene, finding the proposed arguments and materials relevant and non-controversial.

The applicant, facing multiple charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, and first-degree murder, applied under s. 462.34(4)(c) of the Criminal Code for the release of $459,595 seized by police to pay his legal expenses.

While the Crown conceded the applicant had an exclusive interest in the funds, the court found the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he lacked other financial resources to retain counsel.

The application was dismissed due to a dearth of financial information provided by the applicant.

The offender was convicted of four counts of trafficking crack cocaine and four counts of possession of property obtained by crime after selling to an undercover officer.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought one year.

The court weighed the offender's prior related record and profit motive against mitigating factors including stringent bail conditions and an arbitrary arrest.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months incarceration, followed by three years of probation, with 189 days of pre-sentence credit.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and one count of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences occurred while the accused was on bail and seeking treatment for his own addiction.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence, while the defence sought a 3-year sentence, arguing for a reduction based on the accused's addiction and his surrender of a firearm to police.

The court found that the accused was a mid-level trafficker selling for profit, not merely an addict-trafficker.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years, reduced by 44 months for pre-trial custody and 4 months for surrendering the firearm, resulting in a remaining sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking heroin in a commercial dial-a-dope operation.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the nature of the drug and the commercial enterprise, against mitigating factors such as the accused's lack of a relevant criminal record, remorse, and community support.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years, reduced to 2.5 years after granting 1 year of credit for time spent on strict house arrest bail.

The applicant sought relief from a forfeiture order relating to residential property forfeited as offence-related property and proceeds of crime following a relative’s conviction for conspiracy to traffic cocaine.

The applicant claimed an interest in the property based on a $150,000 loan used toward its purchase and argued he held either an equitable mortgage or constructive trust interest.

The court found no intention by the parties to secure the loan against the property and therefore no equitable mortgage or resulting interest arose.

The court further held that a constructive trust based on unjust enrichment was unavailable because the applicant was merely an unsecured creditor and Parliament’s statutory forfeiture scheme constituted a juristic reason for the Crown’s enrichment.

Although the applicant appeared innocent of complicity or collusion in the offences, the absence of any legal or equitable interest in the property required dismissal of the application.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown sought to admit opinion evidence from a police officer regarding the pricing and value of cocaine imported through Pearson Airport.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the proposed expert evidence, arguing the witness lacked proper qualifications and that the evidence could improperly influence the jury.

Applying the criteria for expert evidence from R. v. Mohan and the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Sekhon, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification.

The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the accused’s knowledge and that the jury would not otherwise understand the value of the quantity of cocaine involved.

Based on the officer’s extensive investigative experience and exposure to pricing information through investigations and intelligence sources, the court concluded he possessed the requisite specialized knowledge and permitted the opinion evidence.

The applicants, a mother and daughter, were arrested at Pearson Airport after a sniffer dog alerted to them and customs officers found they were wearing shorts containing cocaine under their dresses.

They brought a motion to exclude the evidence and stay the proceedings, alleging violations of their Charter rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found a violation of s. 10(b) due to a 41-minute delay in facilitating access to duty counsel, but dismissed the other Charter claims, finding the dog sniff, arrests, and strip searches were lawful in the border context.

Applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and found a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The accused was sentenced following a jury conviction for trafficking nearly three kilograms of cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $54,000.

Wiretap evidence demonstrated the accused’s ongoing and significant role in a multi‑kilogram cocaine distribution network, including negotiating price, quantity, and delivery.

Although the accused had no relevant criminal record and presented numerous mitigating personal circumstances, the court emphasized the seriousness of multi‑kilogram cocaine trafficking and the need for general deterrence.

Relying on Ontario appellate authorities establishing higher sentencing ranges for large‑scale cocaine trafficking, the court concluded that a penitentiary term within the 8–10 year range was appropriate.