Cristina Valeri

Sentencing decision for production of methamphetamine contrary to s. 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused participated in a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory as part of Project Odeon, a large-scale drug network investigation.

The accused played a lower-to-middle level role in the hierarchy.

Aggravating factors included participation in commercial drug production.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, guilty plea, genuine remorse, positive rehabilitative prospects, and collateral consequences from interrupted medical treatment during pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a 5-year sentence less pre-sentence custody credit, with 2 years probation.

The accused was charged with 27 offences arising from a shooting incident on the Six Nations Reserve on May 6, 2024.

The Crown alleged the accused fired a firearm at a van fleeing his residence after a physical altercation with three women.

The Crown conceded insufficient evidence for attempted murder charges.

The court found the accused guilty of five counts of pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm, uttering a threat, five counts of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, breaching probation orders, breaching a firearms prohibition order, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and driving while prohibited.

The court acquitted on two assault charges and two firearm licensing charges, finding the weapon met the definition of firearm under section 2 of the Criminal Code but not the enhanced definition under section 84(3)(d).

The accused was charged with operation while impaired by a drug contrary to section 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failure or refusal to comply with a demand under section 320.15(1).

The Crown conceded the first count at trial.

On the second count, the court found that the Crown failed to prove a valid demand, which is an essential element of the failure to comply offence.

The evaluating officer required an affirmative statement from the accused that she would submit to the evaluation before proceeding, which constituted an additional unlawful demand not authorized by the Criminal Code.

Furthermore, the initial demand to "submit to an evaluation" was not unequivocal as it did not clearly communicate what the accused was compelled to do.

The accused was acquitted.

Daniel Hastings was found guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a four-year custodial sentence, while the defence requested a two-year conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking, the offender's lengthy criminal record, and significant mitigating factors including his first trafficking conviction, low-level involvement, and substantial rehabilitation efforts since the offence.

The court found exceptional circumstances, including the offender's commitment to sobriety, employment, and community involvement, justified a conditional sentence.

A global sentence of two years less a day conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Emily Rajczak-McGuigan, was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000.00.

Police found her unconscious in a vehicle with drugs and cash.

The accused testified that she possessed the drugs to overdose and end her life, not to traffic them, and provided alternative sources for the cash.

The court applied the principle of contemporaneity, requiring the mens rea (intention to traffic) to coincide with the actus reus (possession) at the material time.

The court accepted the accused's credible testimony that she intended to die by suicide and did not intend to traffic the drugs at the time of her discovery.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the intent to traffic beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found not guilty on both charges.

The defendant, Nina Nodwell, facing charges of careless driving causing death and bodily harm, brought two pretrial applications: one for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, and another for a stay due to abuse of process by the Crown.

The court found the total delay was 19.6 months, but a significant portion was attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic, which was deemed an exceptional circumstance.

After deducting the COVID-19 related delay, the net delay was well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

Regarding the abuse of process claim, the court found no firm resolution agreement was reached between the parties, and thus the Crown did not "resile" from a deal.

The court also found no prejudice to the defendant and no bad faith or improper motive by the Crown.

Both applications were dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.