Denys Richard Joseph Bradley

Sentencing for a mid-level trafficker convicted after trial of possessing significant quantities of fentanyl and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking, possessing a loaded prohibited handgun, resisting arrest, and possessing proceeds of crime.

The court held that trafficking fentanyl in a vulnerable Northern Ontario community, near an elementary school, while armed with a loaded concealed handgun, substantially increased both the gravity of the offences and the offender’s moral blameworthiness.

The court applied the Kienapple principle, imposed consecutive sentences for fentanyl trafficking and the firearm offence, and treated Charter breaches, anti-Black racism social context, traumatic childhood history, family separation consequences, and stringent bail and remand conditions as mitigating factors.

A global 12-year sentence was reduced to 10 years under the totality principle, with additional pre-sentence credit.

The accused was arrested for possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking following surveillance and confidential informant tips.

A search of his vehicle incident to arrest yielded a loaded handgun, ammunition, large quantities of drugs, and cash.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the arrest and searches were lawful, but found a breach of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) due to a delay in notifying the accused of his change in jeopardy after the firearm and drugs were found.

Applying the Grant test, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

On the trial proper, the court found the circumstantial evidence proved the possession offences beyond a reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty of all charges, including resisting arrest.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was scheduled to conclude 49 days beyond the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that various periods of delay, including counsel's unavailability and requests for adjournments, were attributable to the defence, bringing the net delay under the ceiling.

Furthermore, the court held that the unexpected unavailability of a Crown witness and the presiding judge constituted discrete exceptional events justifying further deductions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Brittany Taylor, sought a stay of proceedings for a charge of possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, alleging a denial of her right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The total delay from arrest to expected trial completion was 24 months, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan for Superior Court matters.

The court found no attributable defence delay.

However, it determined that the applicant's efforts to expedite the trial were not sustained and that the case did not markedly exceed its reasonable time requirements, considering its complexity and the institutional delays.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused brought an application for disclosure of a police handler's handwritten notes regarding a confidential informant.

The accused sought the notes to determine whether the informant's information was firsthand, arguing this was necessary to challenge a subsequent warrantless search.

The Crown opposed the application, asserting informer privilege and arguing the information was irrelevant as the reliability of the informant had already been established in a prior ruling.

The court dismissed the application, finding that because the value and reliability of the informant's information had already been determined in a previous Garofoli application, the handler's notes were no longer relevant.

L'accusé a été poursuivi pour cinq chefs d'accusation découlant d'une arrestation le 15 octobre 2014 : possession de cocaïne en vue d'en faire le trafic, possession de fentanyl en vue d'en faire le trafic, possession d'un bien obtenu de la perpétration d'une infraction, voies de fait contre un agent de la paix, et évasion de la garde légale.

Le tribunal a conclu que l'accusé était coupable de possession de cocaïne et de fentanyl en vue d'en faire le trafic, basant sa décision sur la quantité de stupéfiants, leur mode d'emballage, la somme d'argent en diverses coupures trouvée sur l'accusé, une liste de noms et de chiffres compatible avec une liste de dettes liée au trafic, et le témoignage d'un expert en drogues.

L'accusé a été acquitté de l'accusation de possession d'un bien obtenu de la perpétration d'une infraction.

Concernant les accusations de voies de fait et d'évasion, le tribunal a conclu que l'accusé avait résisté à l'arrestation mais n'avait pas commis les infractions plus graves alléguées.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from a search conducted incident to arrest, arguing the search violated section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on information from three reliable confidential informants.

The court further found that the search, conducted in a public parking lot, did not constitute a strip search as defined by the Supreme Court and was reasonable in the circumstances.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained from two Informations to Obtain (ITOs) that authorized production orders and tracking warrants, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The applicant argued the ITOs relied on unsourced and uncorroborated information from confidential informants, failing to establish reasonable grounds.

The court applied the totality of the circumstances test and found the informants' tips were compelling, credible, and sufficiently corroborated by police surveillance.

The court held the issuing justice could reasonably have found the requisite grounds and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought exclusion of drugs and related items seized from a motor vehicle, arguing arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter and unreasonable seizure under s. 8.

The court held that although police attempted to detain the applicant, his immediate flight meant there was no detention engaging s. 9.

The court further held that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle, but the warrantless seizure was authorized under s. 489(2) of the Criminal Code and was reasonable in the circumstances.

As no Charter breach was found, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of Oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, arguing that police relied exclusively on information from a confidential informant that lacked sufficient detail and corroboration.

The court found that the arrest was lawful based on the totality of circumstances, including the credibility of the informant, the compelling nature of the information provided, and police corroboration through surveillance.

The court distinguished the case from R v. Daley, finding that the informant had firsthand knowledge, a proven track record, and that police observations corroborated the informant's information.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused brought a Charter motion seeking exclusion of drug evidence seized during a warrantless vehicle search following his arrest for drug trafficking.

The defence argued that late disclosure of additional confidential informant tips undermined police credibility and that the Crown had failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The court held that although disclosure had been late and piecemeal, any prejudice was cured by an adjournment and there was no evidence of bad faith.

Applying the test in Debot for informant-based police action, the court found the confidential source reliable and the information sufficiently corroborated through police investigation.

The court concluded that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and that the search incident to arrest was lawful.

The accused was sentenced following a conviction after trial for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and guilty pleas to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of breaching bail recognizance.

Police executing a search warrant located a loaded handgun in a bag belonging to the accused at a residence used as a base for drug trafficking.

While on bail for the firearms charge, the accused travelled to another city and was arrested with cocaine, multiple cell phones, cash, and a digital scale, breaching several bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for the dangerous combination of loaded firearms and drug trafficking, while considering the offender’s youth and lack of prior criminal record.

A global sentence of four and one‑half years’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for pre‑trial custody.