D. Quayat

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 2.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

At sentencing, the offender argued for a conditional sentence, citing systemic racism, a difficult childhood, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including segregation and lockdowns.

The court acknowledged the offender's difficult background and the existence of systemic racism, which justified a sentence slightly below the standard 6-8 year Cunningham range.

However, the court found that the seriousness of the offence required a period of incarceration.

The court imposed a base sentence of 4.5 years, reduced to 3.5 years after applying Summers credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused was convicted of possession of 15 kilograms of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a sting operation involving the US-DEA and RCMP.

Prior to sentencing, the accused brought an application alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the failure to bring it prior to trial was fatal and that the net delay was below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court sentenced the accused to 8 years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the large quantity and high purity of the cocaine.

The accused, charged with terrorism offences for allegedly attempting to travel to Syria to join the Islamic State, appeared for a mandatory detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court conducted a bail hearing 'from the ground up'.

The court found that the Crown's case was not overwhelmingly strong, as there was no direct evidence the accused intended to enhance the terrorist group's ability to carry out terrorist activities, nor any history of violence.

The court concluded that the accused's detention was not justified under the primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds, and ordered her release on a $100,000 surety bail with strict conditions, including a ban on social media and internet monitoring.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 203.5 grams of heroin, conspiracy to import, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, and pled guilty to using a forged document.

The court found the offender was a mere courier motivated by financial need to support his family, and that he knew the imported substance was heroin.

Weighing the significant mitigating factors, including his status as a first-time offender with strong community support, against the aggravating nature of heroin, the court sentenced the offender to 5 years' imprisonment.

The three accused were charged with importing cocaine after returning from a vacation in Jamaica.

Border Services Officers found approximately half a kilo of cocaine hidden inside cocoa powder cans in each of their checked suitcases.

The accused immediately disavowed knowledge of the drugs, claiming they were planted by unknown persons.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that 'Occam's Razor' proved guilt and found that the accused's immediate disavowals and testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding their knowledge of the drugs.

All three accused were found not guilty.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 1.34 kilograms of cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of 45 months, while the defence sought 30 months.

The court considered the offender's significant personal hardships, including a difficult upbringing, abuse, severe health challenges, and a long history of steady employment despite these issues.

Finding that the offender's unique circumstances justified a departure from the usual 3 to 5 year range for importing a kilogram of cocaine, the court imposed a sentence of 33 months imprisonment.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence and stay drug trafficking charges, alleging his arrest and subsequent searches violated his Charter rights.

The court found the arrest and pat-down search were lawful based on police observations of a suspected hand-to-hand drug transaction.

However, the court held the subsequent strip search violated section 8 of the Charter because the police failed to properly document and justify the authorization for the search.

Despite the breach, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings under section 24(1), finding the Babos criteria were not met and suggesting the breach could be addressed as a mitigating factor at sentencing if the accused is convicted.

The accused were charged with importing cocaine into Canada after arriving at Pearson International Airport from St. Lucia with cocaine hidden in their suitcases.

They admitted to the importation but raised the defence of duress, claiming they were threatened at gunpoint and tortured by men in St. Lucia who forced them to carry the drugs.

The court rejected the defence, finding the accused's testimony lacked credibility and was contradicted by their actions and communications.

The court further held that even if the threats had occurred, the accused had a safe avenue of escape by reporting the matter to Canadian authorities upon arrival.

Both accused were convicted.

In a medical negligence action arising from the alleged failure to diagnose fetal spina bifida on obstetrical ultrasound, the plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to assert personal wrongful birth claims and plead discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant radiologist opposed the amendments, arguing they introduced a new cause of action outside the limitation period and sought summary judgment dismissing the action as statute‑barred.

The court held the proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action but merely provided further particulars and clarification of claims already implicit in the factual matrix of the original pleading.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding discoverability because expert opinion was required to determine whether the ultrasound findings should have been diagnosed as spina bifida.

Leave to amend was granted and the limitation defence could not be resolved on summary judgment.

A partnership sought the appointment of an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act, 1991 following the withdrawal of a former partner and the issuance of a notice of arbitration alleging breaches of the partnership agreement.

The former partner moved to stay the arbitration pending resolution of a separate civil action involving other former partners and raised counterclaims challenging the validity of provisions in the partnership agreement.

The court held that the arbitration clause in the partnership agreement was broad and that the disputes raised by the partnership clearly fell within its scope.

The court found that the respondent’s counterclaim in the civil action was a colourable attempt to sidetrack the arbitration and that the issues could properly be determined by an arbitrator.

The motion to stay the arbitration was dismissed, the respondent’s counterclaim in the civil action was stayed, and the court appointed an arbitrator pursuant to the Arbitration Act, 1991.