David Heath

The Crown applied to admit three categories of discreditable conduct evidence against the accused, Brandon Drakes-Simon and Justin Malcolm, in a first-degree murder trial: Drakes-Simon's acquisition of a firearm, his expressed intention to deal with legal bills, and evidence that he was seeking additional "contract killing" work.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, ruling all three categories of evidence inadmissible.

The judge found the evidence to have negligible probative value due to its general nature and to be overwhelmingly prejudicial, particularly as it amounted to forbidden bad character reasoning.

The youth accused was charged with second-degree murder following a fatal stabbing during a drug transaction.

The deceased and others had planned to rob the accused.

When the deceased approached the accused wearing a mask and drawing a large knife, the accused reacted by drawing his own knife and stabbing the deceased multiple times.

The court excluded the accused's subsequent statement to police, finding it lacked spontaneity.

However, applying the W.(D.) framework, the court accepted the accused's testimony that he believed he was about to be stabbed and acted to protect himself.

The Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

Cole Kieley sought a bail review of two detention orders related to firearms charges in Newmarket and Toronto, including attempt murder.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and court adjournments.

The court found Kieley met the onus on the secondary ground but failed on the tertiary ground, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences (a public gun battle), the fact they were committed while on prior bail for a similar offence, and the potential loss of public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and Kieley remained detained.

The accused, charged with 18 drug-related offences including trafficking large amounts of fentanyl, cocaine, and MDMA, brought a bail review after being detained.

He proposed a new release plan involving his aunt and uncle as sureties and GPS electronic monitoring.

The court found the accused barely met his onus on the primary and secondary grounds.

However, applying the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code, the court concluded that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the overwhelming strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences involving deadly drugs, and the likelihood of a significant penitentiary sentence.

The bail review was dismissed.

The accused was charged with attempting to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking, importing heroin, and resisting a peace officer after picking up a package containing a control sample of heroin from a cargo forwarding company.

The police had intercepted the original 3.3 kg shipment from Pakistan and conducted a controlled delivery.

The court found the accused guilty of attempting to possess for the purpose of trafficking based on her counter-surveillance driving pattern, which proved she knew she possessed a controlled substance.

However, she was acquitted of importing due to a lack of evidence that she knew the drugs originated outside Canada, and acquitted of resisting arrest due to a reasonable doubt about her intent to resist during a brief struggle.

The accused was convicted at trial of possession of 55 grams of ketamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 12-month sentence while the defence sought 90 days.

The court imposed a 7-month custodial sentence followed by two years probation, finding that while the accused demonstrated significant rehabilitation efforts and was an addict trafficker rather than profit-motivated, the prior related conviction, the amount of the drug, and the dangers posed by ketamine required a custodial sentence beyond what the defence proposed.

The accused was arrested for suspected impaired driving and found in possession of 55 grams of ketamine, 0.2 grams of ketamine in a separate package with a straw, cash, and a cellular phone.

A search of his vehicle revealed additional drugs, scales, multiple cellular phones, and a bag of white powder.

The defence conceded possession of ketamine but contested whether it was possessed for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the quantity of the drug, expert evidence regarding typical consumption rates, the presence of scales and multiple phones, and the accused's financial circumstances.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding heavy personal use was not credible and that the only rational inference from the evidence was that the ketamine was possessed for trafficking purposes.