Cindy-Lynn Clementina Afonso

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to export cocaine and sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's jury instruction on the element of conspiracy, specifically regarding the formation of an agreement.

The appellant argued the instruction was confusing and failed to adequately direct the jury to consider what the agreement was for and whether discussions about exporting cocaine crystallized into an actual agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury charge, read as a whole, clearly left all elements of conspiracy for the jury's consideration and properly framed the legal framework.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence was within the appropriate range and the trial judge had properly considered the duration of the conspiracy.

Christopher Bryan was on trial for importing cocaine.

The Crown sought to admit Jennifer McGrath's passport application to corroborate her testimony and to show Bryan acted as guarantor in furtherance of a conspiracy.

The defence opposed, arguing hearsay, late notice under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act (CEA), and prejudice.

The court ruled that Ms. McGrath's statements on the first page of the application were admissible as she adopted them in testimony.

However, the full passport application and affidavit were not admissible under s. 30 CEA due to late notice and resulting prejudice to the defence.

Section 2, the "Declaration of Guarantor" allegedly completed by Bryan, was admissible under the admissions exception to the hearsay rule, with concerns about the unsavoury witness (McGrath) going to weight, not admissibility.

The defence's request for a mistrial was denied.

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.