Darren Garth Anger

The applicant was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000, and failing to comply with a release order on December 21, 2021.

The jury trial was scheduled to commence on February 23, 2026, more than 50 months after the charge.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application arguing that the delay violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under the Jordan framework.

The court found that after deducting defence delay and accounting for discrete events, the remaining delay of 34.14 months exceeded the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

The court concluded that the delay was not justified by case complexity and granted a stay of proceedings.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s.5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of money exceeding $5,000 derived from an indictable offence contrary to s.355(a) of the Criminal Code.

Following a trial conducted as a blended hearing, the court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant based on confidential informant information and surveillance observations.

The defendant was found to be in possession of all cocaine found in his vehicle and residence for the purpose of trafficking.

However, the Crown failed to prove possession of more than $5,000 derived from drug trafficking.

The defendant was convicted on count one and convicted of the lesser included offence on count two.

The defendant, a long-haul truck driver with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to four counts of smuggling and possession of unstamped tobacco under the Customs Act and Excise Act.

Over approximately 16 months, the defendant participated in a smuggling scheme importing unstamped tobacco from the United States into Canada, with three shipments intercepted totaling approximately 45,000 kilograms and evading approximately $17.5 million in duties and taxes.

The defendant was recruited by individuals known as "Rav" and "Harb" and earned approximately $2,500 per load, with evidence suggesting approximately 12 loads successfully crossed the border undetected.

The defendant's twin brother was also involved in the scheme.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with stringent conditions including home confinement with electronic monitoring, limited exceptions for employment and necessities, 200 hours of community service, and restrictions on cross-border movement and contact with his brother, followed by one year of probation with an additional 100 hours of community service.

The court considered whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Kimera Fullwood was in possession of a prohibited firearm found in a residence during a drug trafficking investigation.

The court reviewed the law on circumstantial evidence and possession, ultimately finding that the evidence was reasonably capable of supporting an alternative inference that another individual, Hasnan Sandhu, brought the firearm into the residence without Fullwood’s knowledge.

Fullwood was acquitted on the firearm charges.

The defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

Police surveillance observed activities consistent with drug trafficking.

A search of the defendant's apartment revealed a significant quantity of methamphetamine (98.3 grams), drug paraphernalia (scales, baggies with residue), a drug debt list, and cash.

The defendant denied knowledge and possession, attributing the items to a transient roommate.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as incredible, finding that the circumstantial evidence, including items in plain view and the drug debt list linked to him and his associates, proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses the sentencing of an offender convicted of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking within a custodial facility.

The court considered the seriousness of drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl, and the aggravating factor of the offence occurring in a detention centre.

The offender's extensive criminal record and his misconduct in fraudulently delaying sentencing proceedings were also significant factors.

The court applied a "Duncan credit" for harsh pre-trial conditions but limited the "Summers credit" due to the offender's deliberate attempts to obstruct justice.

The defendant, Arkadiusz Buksinski, brought a motion for a mistrial after being found guilty of drug trafficking, alleging he required a Polish interpreter and received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel, Ms. McArthur.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant's claim of a language barrier to be disingenuous and a deliberate attempt to "game the system." The court found that his trial counsel provided effective assistance, relying on Ms. McArthur's testimony, the defendant's prior court appearances without an interpreter, and a probation officer's assessment of his English fluency.

Michael Bennett and Dylan Griggs were found guilty after trial of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the serious nature of the drugs, the profit motive, the large quantities involved, and the fact that both were first offenders without drug dependence issues.

Credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions (house arrest, curfew) was factored into the sentences.

Bennett was sentenced to a total of five years in penitentiary, and Griggs was sentenced to a total of eleven years in penitentiary.

Automatic weapons prohibitions, DNA orders, and victim surcharges were also imposed, and seized cash and offence-related property were ordered forfeited.

Dolal Jama was sentenced for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a six-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the substantial amount of fentanyl, and the offender's criminal record, including prior drug convictions.

However, the court also gave significant weight to the offender's long-standing addiction, his persistent and successful efforts at rehabilitation, and his early guilty plea.

The judge emphasized the principle of proportionality, arguing against a rigid application of sentencing ranges for addict-traffickers.

Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence of two years' incarceration, followed by two years' probation.

Matthew Mailhot was sentenced for possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, along with other drugs, while in custody on a surety revocation.

He had a significant criminal record, including recent firearms convictions for which he was already serving a five-year sentence.

The Crown sought an eight-year consecutive sentence, while the defence sought a four-to-five-year concurrent sentence.

The court emphasized the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking, especially in a custodial setting, but also considered the offender's lamentable background and lifelong addiction as mitigating factors.

The judge rejected the Crown's interpretation of R. v. Ribble regarding the minimal relevance of addiction for commercial traffickers and reaffirmed proportionality as the cardinal principle of sentencing, which includes the offender's moral responsibility.

The court imposed a 3.5-year sentence, consecutive to the existing sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and victim surcharge.

The judge also recommended transfer to an Alberta institution to support rehabilitation.

The defendants in a drug and proceeds offence case sought standing to challenge search warrants under the Charter.

The court dismissed the application for standing for all defendants except one (Taylor Brennan, whose charges were later stayed), finding that they failed to prove a sufficient connection to the searched properties to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy on a balance of probabilities.

The decision reiterates that the onus is on the defendant to prove standing and discusses the application of the Edwards factors and the normative vs. categorical approach to Charter standing.

The defendants, Arkadiusz Buksinski and Matthew Mcara, were charged with possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking while inmates at the Niagara Detention Centre.

Correctional officers seized 14.5 grams of fentanyl and 18.7 grams of crystal methamphetamine from their shared cell.

The court found Mr. Buksinski guilty, based on his actions of attempting to flush contraband down the toilet upon the officers' entry and the location of the drugs near his bunk.

Mr. Mcara was found not guilty, as there was insufficient evidence to prove his knowledge or control over the drugs, despite sharing the cell.

The defendant, Robert Crozier, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after an unsuccessful Charter motion to exclude evidence.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence advocated for a conditional sentence order (CSO) of two years less a day, citing the *Sharma* decision and the defendant's personal circumstances, including health issues.

The court found that the case was not exceptional enough to warrant a CSO, distinguishing it from *R. v. Mori*, and sentenced the defendant to three years in the penitentiary, along with ancillary orders.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a mixture of fentanyl and heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

At a Gardiner Hearing, the court found that the defendant believed he possessed only heroin and was not wilfully blind to the presence of fentanyl.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years imprisonment.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with electronic supervision, followed by three years probation.

The sentencing decision was grounded in exceptional circumstances including the defendant's genuine prospect for rehabilitation, completion of a residential treatment program, family reunification, and stable support from his step-grandmother.

The defendant brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at his residence, alleging a violation of his Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The search warrant was based on information from a confidential human source (CHS) regarding cocaine trafficking, corroborated by police surveillance.

The defendant sought to cross-examine the affiant regarding the lottery winnings that explained his lifestyle.

The court found that the search warrant was facially valid based on the totality of circumstances, including the CHS information and extensive police surveillance observations consistent with drug trafficking activity.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The defendant was convicted after trial of possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, possession of proceeds of crime, and failure to comply with a probation order.

The defendant was arrested with significant quantities of fentanyl and cocaine in his backpack, along with a digital scale, cell phone, and cash.

While in custody, he was found with additional fentanyl and charged accordingly.

The Crown sought a sentence of 6 years; the defence sought 3.5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 2 years in custody (in addition to 18 months pre-sentence custody) followed by 2 years probation, taking into account the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the defendant's health circumstances.

The accused, Robert Kevin Rouse, sought a detention review after being in custody for over 90 days.

The application, initially a bail review, proceeded as a detention review by consent.

The accused argued for release based on a material change in circumstances, specifically a reduction in the seriousness of one drug charge (fentanyl to MDA) and the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in correctional facilities.

The Crown opposed, citing the accused's extensive criminal record and history of non-compliance with release terms.

The court found that a combination of a new, credible surety plan (the accused's father offering constant supervision) and the public health concerns related to COVID-19 in detention facilities justified granting judicial interim release.

The accused sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, 48 years old with 84 prior convictions including breaches of recognizance and escapes, was found in possession of significant quantities of crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl, along with drug paraphernalia.

The court considered the strong Crown case, the accused's extensive criminal record, and the unsuitability of the proposed surety.

Despite potential trial delays due to the pandemic and the prospect of COVID-19 in detention, the court found continued detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the high risk of reoffending and lack of respect for court orders.

The bail review was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine following his arrest and a strip search at a police station.

The court found the accused not guilty on two independent grounds: (1) the chain of custody for the alleged drugs was so deficient that the court could not be satisfied the substance analyzed was the same substance seized from the accused, and (2) the strip search violated the accused's Charter rights under section 8 both because reasonable and probable grounds were not established and because the manner of the search was unreasonable.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was sentenced for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (5.5 ounces) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought 2.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a creative sentencing approach combining an intermittent sentence on the drug charge with a conditional sentence on the proceeds charge.

The court rejected the defence proposal, finding no exceptional circumstances warranted departure from established sentencing ranges.

The court imposed 15 months imprisonment on the trafficking charge and 6 months concurrent on the proceeds charge, followed by 30 months probation with 160 hours community service.