E. Bruce Olmsted

The appellant appealed his sentence for drug and gun offences.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge failed to give adequate consideration to the appellant's age and status as a first offender.

The court upheld the 12-month sentence for the gun offence but converted the sentence on the hashish charge to a concurrent sentence, taking into account pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed an order denying his application for certiorari to quash his committal for trial on charges of trafficking cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of cocaine, and possession of the proceeds of crime.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the 'some evidence' threshold for committal was met based on police observations, testimony from a purchaser, and the discovery of drugs and money in an apartment to which the appellant had a key.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of trafficking in cocaine.

The respondent had been targeted in a 'reverse sting' operation where undercover RCMP officers offered to sell him 18 kilograms of cocaine.

The trial judge found that the police conduct was illegal because it contravened internal RCMP policy requiring approval from national headquarters, and concluded this amounted to an abuse of process, excluding all evidence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that the officers' offer to sell was exempt from the CDSA trafficking prohibition under s. 15 of the regulations, as they were acting in the course of their responsibilities despite breaching internal policy.

Finding no illegality, the Court of Appeal set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant was serving a conditional sentence for trafficking in a narcotic when he was arrested on numerous charges relating to stolen property and firearms.

The sentencing judge found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant breached the condition to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, and ordered him to serve the remainder of his sentence in custody.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judge applied the wrong standard of proof, relied on insufficient evidence, and failed to consider alternatives to incarceration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that the standard of proof for a breach of a conditional sentence is the ordinary civil standard of a balance of probabilities, and that the presumption in favour of incarceration upon a breach was appropriately applied.