Elizabeth Barefoot

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, along with related offences.

The Crown relied on text messages found on the accused's phone, which were admitted under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, to prove he was dealing drugs.

The court found that the drugs, located in a closet where the accused's cousin was hiding, were in the accused's constructive possession.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, proceeds of crime, breach of probation, and possession of marijuana, but acquitted of weapons and ammunition charges.

In a trial for possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown brought an application to adduce expert handwriting evidence from a Centre of Forensic Sciences employee.

The expert concluded that the accused probably wrote portions of debt lists seized by police.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and lacked sufficient reliability.

The court applied the Mohan framework and found the evidence logically and legally relevant, necessary, not subject to an exclusionary rule, and proffered by a properly qualified expert.

The Crown's application was granted and the expert evidence was ruled admissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a prohibited weapon while prohibited.

The court weighed the offender's lengthy criminal record and the large quantities of highly dangerous narcotics against his guilty pleas, family responsibilities, and willingness to seek treatment.

The court sentenced the offender to 5 years in custody, less pre-sentence credit, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The offender was convicted of possessing methamphetamine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of 5 to 6 years, while the defence sought time served.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record and the serious nature of the drugs, particularly fentanyl, as aggravating factors.

However, the court also recognized the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts while in custody.

The court sentenced the offender to 4 years in the penitentiary, less pre-sentence custody, resulting in 581 days remaining to be served.

The accused brought a pretrial Charter application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) following a traffic stop that led to the discovery of a prohibited weapon and a large quantity of narcotics.

The court rejected the accused's version of events, preferring the testimony of the police officers.

The court found no Charter violations, concluding that the brief delay in informing the accused of the reason for the stop was justified, the detention and frisk-search were necessary for officer safety, and the vehicle search was a lawful search incidental to arrest.

The application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) was dismissed.

The offender was convicted after trial of trafficking fentanyl and pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and two counts of unauthorized possession of firearms.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years.

The court found exceptional circumstances, including the offender's severe health issues, rehabilitation efforts, and the parity principle, given that the co-adjudicator received a significantly lighter sentence.

The court imposed a reformatory sentence of 15 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

The offender, a 37-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of simple possession of cocaine (29.4 grams), methamphetamine, and codeine.

The Crown sought 6 to 8 months in custody, while the defence requested a suspended sentence and probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the quantity of cocaine, but also considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, cooperation with police, and family circumstances.

The court sentenced the offender to 90 days in custody for the cocaine possession, and suspended sentences with 12 months of probation for the other two offences.

The accused were charged with possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of hydromorphone, following a police raid on a residence.

The court found the male accused guilty of possessing the methamphetamine and fentanyl, as circumstantial evidence linked him to the drugs found in the bathroom.

The female accused was acquitted of those charges but found guilty of simple possession of hydromorphone based on her admission to police regarding spoons containing morphine found in a bedroom.

During a trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown brought an application to qualify a police officer as an expert in the use, pricing, sale, and distribution of cocaine.

The court dismissed the application without a formal voir dire, finding that the proposed evidence failed the Mohan test for admissibility.

Specifically, the court held that the evidence lacked legal relevance as it was not grounded on proven facts and was unnecessary because the inferences sought by the Crown, such as interpreting text messages, did not require expert assistance.

The accused, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary arrest and unreasonable search.

The police stopped the accused's vehicle and arrested him without a warrant based on confidential informant information and surveillance.

The police subsequently searched his vehicle incident to arrest and found cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the vehicle search was a valid search incident to arrest.

The accused was tried on six charges including trafficking fentanyl and hydromorphone, simple possession of fentanyl, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of prohibited weapons.

The Crown alleged the accused supplied fentanyl to an intermediary who sold it to an undercover officer.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused of trafficking fentanyl.

However, the court acquitted the accused on the remaining charges, finding reasonable doubt regarding the source of the hydromorphone, the lawfulness of the excess fentanyl patches, the origin of the seized cash, and the accused's knowledge of the prohibited characteristics of the seized knives.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault, alleging errors by the trial judge in assessing credibility and claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appeal court reviewed the trial judge's application of the W.(D.) principles and found no reversible error in the credibility findings or apprehension of evidence.

Regarding the ineffective assistance claim, the court scrutinized trial counsel's preparation and tactical decisions during cross-examination, concluding that counsel's performance fell within the acceptable range of professional judgment and did not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The offender, a 29-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic cocaine and cannabis, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought 4.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for mid-level drug trafficking operations motivated by profit.

Balancing the serious nature of the offences with the offender's guilty pleas, lack of prior record, and strong family support, the court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, reduced by 6 months for strict bail conditions, resulting in 42 months imprisonment.

Accused charged with multiple assaults against their children sought disclosure of third‑party records held by a child protection agency.

The defence argued the records were likely relevant to the credibility and reliability of the child complainants because they contained allegations made by the children against other individuals.

Applying the likely relevance test from O’Connor and related authorities, the court held that speculative requests for third‑party records are impermissible but found sufficient case‑specific evidence that similar allegations had been made and at least partially recanted or determined unfounded.

The court concluded the threshold for stage‑one production was met and ordered the records unsealed for judicial review before determining whether disclosure to the defence should occur.

The Crown applied to summarily dismiss the defence's pretrial applications for a stay of proceedings and for third-party records.

The accused, charged with assaulting their children, sought a stay based on alleged warrantless police attendances at their property and sought records from the Children's Aid Society.

The court allowed the third-party records application to proceed in part, despite service issues, but summarily dismissed the stay application as frivolous under Rule 6.11(2), finding it had no reasonable prospect of success even if the alleged facts were true.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging an arbitrary arrest contrary to s. 9 of the Charter after police stopped a vehicle targeting another suspect and arrested the applicant passenger without any prior information or reasonable grounds.

The court found that the arresting officers had no subjective or objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant, whose only connection was being a passenger in a vehicle driven by the target of a drug investigation.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court held the Charter breach was serious and had a significant impact on the accused’s liberty and privacy interests.

Although the drug evidence was reliable and central to the prosecution, the seriousness of the violation required exclusion.

With the evidence excluded, the Crown called no further evidence and an acquittal was entered.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of their s. 8 and s. 9 rights during a drug trafficking investigation.

The police arrested one accused based on confidential informant tips and surveillance, and subsequently conducted a warrantless 'clearing search' of the accused's residence before obtaining a search warrant.

The court found the arrest was lawful and based on reasonable and probable grounds.

However, the court held the warrantless 'clearing search' violated s. 8 of the Charter as there were no exigent circumstances.

Despite the s. 8 breach, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach was not serious, the police acted in good faith, and the evidence was reliable and crucial to the prosecution.

The applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with production of cannabis and possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act arising from a large marihuana grow operation discovered in rural Grey County.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the property and to individuals involved in the operation through agreements, documents, fuel accounts, and equipment purchases.

The court accepted that the accused had prior property and financial connections with certain individuals and properties but found no reliable evidence placing him at the grow operation or proving knowledge of the illegal activity.

The evidence was equally consistent with the possibility that the accused held an interest in the property but was unaware of the grow operation.

As the Crown failed to prove knowledge or participation beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted on both counts.