David Morlog

The offender was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of possession of proceeds of crime.

The court addressed whether the offender’s youth criminal record remained admissible for sentencing purposes under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, concluding the access period had not expired because the conviction date controlled.

Considering the principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and rehabilitation under ss. 718–718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court weighed aggravating factors including the commercial quantity of cocaine, trafficking in a public shopping mall, and the offender’s prior youth convictions.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, educational achievement, family support, and positive community involvement.

A custodial sentence was imposed as a conditional sentence would not adequately reflect denunciation and deterrence.

The accused applied to exclude crack cocaine discovered during a pat‑down search conducted after police responded to a report of a man armed with a lead pipe in an apartment building.

Police entered the apartment, detained the occupants for investigative purposes, and conducted safety pat‑down searches, during which an officer felt a hard object in the accused’s pocket that proved to be cocaine.

The accused alleged violations of Charter ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a) and 10(b), including unlawful detention, unlawful entry, and an abusive search.

The court held that the police had a reasonable suspicion justifying investigative detention and safety searches under R. v. Mann, and that the search was minimally intrusive and lawful.

Even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) applying the Grant framework.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime after an undercover police drug buy at a shopping mall.

The central issue at trial was whether the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs and money seized upon arrest.

Police witnesses described the controlled buy, continuous surveillance, and the seizure of cocaine, marked buy money, and additional cash and drugs from the accused and his backpack.

The accused testified that another individual committed the transaction and denied possessing the drugs, money, or backpack.

The court rejected the accused’s evidence as not credible and found the police evidence reliable, concluding the Crown proved possession and proceeds beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with trafficking in crack cocaine following an undercover purchase by a police officer.

The case turned primarily on identification evidence, as the undercover officer observed the seller for less than a minute and no photo line-up was conducted.

The court reviewed the recognized frailties of eyewitness identification and the investigative deficiencies, including the failure to verify phone records or conduct a formal identification procedure.

Nevertheless, the judge found the officer’s identification reliable, noting his detailed observations and immediate recognition of the accused after seeing a photograph at a police briefing.

The identification evidence was materially strengthened by circumstantial evidence showing that a cell phone seized from the accused upon arrest rang when police dialed the same number used to arrange the drug transaction.

Taken together, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the seller.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana over 30 grams, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police officers stopped and detained the accused in an alley near Queen Street West and Tecumseh Avenue in Toronto based on suspicions arising from observing two individuals in an alcove.

During a pat-down search, officers discovered 86.75 grams of marijuana.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the detention was unlawful, the search was unlawful, and there was a breach of the right to counsel.

Applying the R v. Grant test, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed all charges.

The accused faced charges for trafficking crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime arising from undercover drug purchases arranged through a police cold call.

After the Crown’s case, the accused conceded the evidence established guilt but applied for a stay based on entrapment.

The court held that the police lacked reasonable suspicion before contacting the accused because the investigation relied on an unverified confidential tip with no information about reliability, currency, or source credibility.

The undercover officer’s immediate request to purchase a specific quantity of drugs constituted an opportunity to commit an offence rather than a preliminary investigative step.

As the opportunity was provided without reasonable suspicion, the conduct amounted to entrapment and the proceedings were stayed.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine.

An undercover officer purchased 0.16 grams of crack from the accused, with an additional small amount found upon search.

The accused had a prior conviction for trafficking cocaine in 2009, triggering a mandatory minimum penalty of one year imprisonment.

The court granted a joint submission for 1.5 days credit for each day of pretrial custody served, based on justifying circumstances including lack of remission credit, difficult prison conditions, the accused's status as an addict in need of rehabilitation unavailable during pretrial custody, and cooperative behaviour since arrest.

The accused was charged with three drug-related offences: unlawful possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, unlawful possession of marijuana, and unlawful possession of cannabis resin, all alleged to have occurred on September 27, 2010, at the Toronto West Detention Centre.

The Crown's case relied on testimony from detention centre officers who seized drugs allegedly handed to them by the accused.

The trial judge found serious inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence, inadequate note-taking by officers, and credible defence testimony.

The court concluded that while drugs were undoubtedly found, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they belonged to the accused or that he possessed them for trafficking purposes.

All charges were dismissed.