Chris Walsh

The offender was found guilty of importing over 500 kilograms of opium, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and related conspiracy charges.

The Crown sought a life sentence due to the massive quantity of drugs and the offender's role, while the defence sought three to eight years.

The court weighed the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence against the offender's lack of prior record, strong community support, and the tragic abduction of his brother related to the drug scheme.

The court imposed a global sentence of 16 years in custody, reduced by 13 months for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown brought an application to remove the defendant's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The defendant and a co-accused were jointly charged with terrorism-related offences.

The counsel of record had previously represented or consulted with the co-accused, the defendant's family members, and potential witnesses in related matters.

The court found a realistic and significant risk of a future conflict of interest that could impair the counsel's duty of loyalty and effective assistance.

The application was granted, and the counsel was removed from the record.

The applicant, Maisum Ansari, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, seeking a stay of proceedings due to alleged unreasonable delay in the delivery of the trial judge's reasons for conviction.

The original trial judge was medically unable to continue, and the application was heard by a different Regional Senior Justice.

The court found that the period of judicial delay in delivering reasons was 7.2 months, calculated from the completion of all submissions after the re-opened trial.

Applying the test from R. v. K.G.K., the court determined that the delay was not "markedly longer than it reasonably should have in all of the circumstances" and that the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of judicial integrity.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of the defendant's statement to an RCMP officer after her arrest for importing cocaine.

The defendant brought a cross-motion alleging violations of her Charter rights under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 by a Canada Border Services Officer (BSO).

The court found the defendant's statement to the RCMP officer voluntary.

However, the court determined that the BSO violated the defendant's section 7 and 10 Charter rights by engaging in intrusive questioning, beyond routine border inspection, after particularized suspicion arose, without advising her of her rights to counsel and to remain silent.

Applying the Grant factors under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the seized drugs and the defendant's incriminating statements.

The appellant was convicted of importing fentanyl and possession for the purpose of trafficking after a controlled delivery of a package from China.

On appeal, she raised several grounds, including errors in jury instructions on importing, circumstantial evidence, and after-the-fact conduct, as well as the unreasonableness of the verdicts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed these grounds but allowed the appeal based on two errors: the trial judge improperly permitted the Crown to invite an adverse inference against the appellant for testifying after another defence witness, and the trial judge erred in dismissing the appellant's application to adduce evidence of a known third-party suspect.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The accused, facing serious charges for trafficking carfentanil and possessing numerous firearms, applied for a second bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a novel release plan involving 24/7 physical surveillance by a private security firm, GPS monitoring, and strict house arrest with multiple sureties.

The court found that this enhanced plan, combined with the severe difficulties the accused faced in preparing for trial due to COVID-19 restrictions in custody, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the stringent conditions sufficiently attenuated the primary, secondary, and tertiary ground concerns, and ordered the accused's release.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic fentanyl and cocaine, and multiple counts of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and firearms offences.

The charges arose from a police investigation into two other individuals, during which the accused was observed associating with them and visiting a storage locker and driving a vehicle where drugs and guns were found in secret traps.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought an application for a directed verdict.

The court granted the application and discharged the accused on all counts, finding there was no evidence upon which a reasonable jury could find the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs and guns, or that he was part of a conspiracy.

The applicant sought a stay of charges for unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, arguing the 42-month delay exceeded the 30-month Jordan threshold.

The Crown contended that defence delay and the COVID-19 pandemic, an exceptional circumstance, reduced the net delay below the threshold.

The court dismissed the application, finding that after deducting 42 days for defence unavailability in setting the preliminary inquiry and 8 months for the defence's waiver of 11(b) rights, plus 5.5 months for pandemic-related delay, the net delay was approximately 27 months and one week, which was reasonable and below the presumptive ceiling.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the 41-month and 19-day delay between his arrest and the jury's verdicts violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court calculated the total delay and deducted periods of defence delay, including time before the scheduling of the preliminary inquiry and time resulting from an abandoned Garofoli application.

The court also found that exceptional circumstances, specifically a lack of judicial resources due to illness and a family death, justified a further 7.5-month deduction.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling, and the application was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of two counts of importing cocaine and one count of conspiracy to import firearms.

The accused orchestrated the importation of eight kilograms of cocaine using couriers and conspired to import 40 to 50 handguns from the United States into Canada.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the accused's leadership role, the quantity of drugs and firearms, and a calculated profit motive.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 16 years' imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 10 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest bail.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought a pre-trial motion challenging the validity of three judicial authorizations: a tracking warrant and two general warrants permitting covert entry.

They sought to excise information from the Informations to Obtain (ITOs), argued the affiant failed to provide full, frank, and fair disclosure, and claimed the general warrants improperly circumvented the requirements of a CDSA search warrant.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to excise information, that the affiant properly exercised his discretion, and that the general warrants were appropriate for the multiple covert entries sought.

The warrants were validly issued, and no s. 8 Charter breach occurred.

Joshua Prestula pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking offenses, including possession of cocaine and fentanyl.

The sentencing hearing addressed the fit sentence for a repeat offender with a difficult background and inhumane pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 years, while the defense sought 4 years and 9 months, emphasizing the parity principle with a co-accused who received a lighter sentence and enhanced credit for lockdown conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years and 3 months, granting significant pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a remaining sentence of 20.5 months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for smuggling approximately three kilograms of cocaine from Jamaica into Canada and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant was detained at Pearson Airport during a secondary customs inspection where CBSA officers discovered cocaine hidden in plastic bags containing a dried food product.

The appellant challenged whether he was detained and whether his Charter rights were breached.

The trial judge found no detention occurred until after the cocaine was discovered, and the Court of Appeal upheld this finding.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the six-and-a-half-year sentence was appropriate and within the established sentencing range for cocaine importation offences.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, as well as possession of proceeds of crime, following the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

The accused was found in the kitchen, but no contraband was found on his person.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including an expired license plate renewal form, to establish constructive possession.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused resided at the home or had knowledge and control of the drugs and currency.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with conspiracy and importation offences relating to a shipment of automotive tire-changing machines from Panama containing 50 kg of cocaine.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on the accused's involvement in arranging the shipment, intercepted communications, and his presence at the warehouse during the controlled delivery.

The accused testified that he was duped by his co-accused and had no knowledge of the cocaine.

The court found the Crown's circumstantial evidence did not eliminate reasonable doubt regarding the accused's knowledge of the illicit contents, despite credibility concerns about the accused's testimony.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The trial commenced in January 2015 and evidence was completed in June 2016, with final submissions heard in November 2016.

The accused's application was brought following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan, which established new presumptive ceilings for trial delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the net delay exceeded the 18-month ceiling, it was justified by exceptional circumstances and the transitional exceptional circumstance applicable to cases substantially completed before Jordan was released.

The Crown sought to introduce statements made by the accused to police during a voluntariness voir dire.

The accused opposed admission, arguing the statements resulted from improper inducements or oppressive circumstances.

The court found no oppression, characterized certain inducements as minor, and determined the accused maintained meaningful choice throughout the interviews.

The court ruled the statements were voluntary and admissible, finding the accused understood the seriousness of the situation and was selective in his responses to police questioning.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of importing heroin into Canada and possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused received a package addressed to "John Henshaw" at his Toronto residence, which was later found to contain heroin.

The Crown withdrew two conspiracy counts after all evidence was heard.

The central issue was whether sufficient evidence existed to establish the accused's knowledge of the drugs to meet the Sheppard test for committal to trial.

The court found that the Crown had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a reasonable inference of knowledge, including the receipt of a similar package from Pakistan one month earlier, the false name on the package, and the implausibility of sending high-value drugs to a stranger's address.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) travel history documents relating to the accused Drago Jankovic, which showed his arrival at Pearson International Airport on August 23, 2013, from Amsterdam.

The Crown relied on the common law business records exception to the hearsay rule, as it did not comply with the Canada Evidence Act.

The accused challenged admissibility on Charter grounds, probative value, and personal knowledge grounds.

The court admitted the documents as business records, finding they were created in the ordinary course of business, were necessary and reliable, and that the testifying CBSA officers had sufficient knowledge of the systems and procedures involved.

The accused Jankovic and Formusa applied for directed verdicts of acquittal following a trial on charges of importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, involving a shipment of tire changing machines from Panama containing approximately 50 kg of cocaine.

Formusa was observed at the warehouse receiving the shipment and was arrested while unloading it.

Jankovic arrived in Canada shortly before the delivery and had communications with Formusa and Avanes.

The court allowed Jankovic's application for directed verdict, finding insufficient evidence to establish his participation in the conspiracy or knowledge of the controlled substance.

The court dismissed Formusa's application, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a conviction on all counts.