Elizabeth Bellerose

The accused was convicted of two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of probation.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought 9 to 12 months.

The court noted the accused's extensive criminal record, ongoing addiction, and lack of remorse or rehabilitative efforts.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 months' incarceration, along with a weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking cocaine and one count of offering to sell a firearm to an undercover officer.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the drug operation and the accused's prior related record, against mitigating factors such as his youth, guilty pleas, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months, but granted 6 months' credit for time spent under strict bail conditions (house arrest) and 8 days for pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 12 months minus 8 days, plus two years' probation.

The accused was arrested following a controlled delivery of a package containing heroin.

During a police interview, he made inculpatory statements.

On a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the statements, the accused argued his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached and that police offered an inducement regarding leniency for his sister, rendering the confession involuntary.

The court found no Charter breach, as the accused spontaneously spoke upon arrest without being questioned.

The court also applied the Oickle framework and concluded that the police comments did not amount to a strong inducement or quid pro quo that overbore the accused's will.

The statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after an undercover RCMP officer conducted a controlled delivery of a package from Tanzania.

The package, containing over a kilogram of heroin, was delivered to the accused's sister's apartment.

The accused had instructed his sister to sign for the package using a false name.

The court found that while actual knowledge of the heroin was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused was wilfully blind to the contents of the package, having admitted he suspected it contained drugs but deliberately choosing not to make further inquiries.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with drug offences after two packages containing heroin were intercepted.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the accused was discharged on several counts, but the Crown preferred an indictment including charges related to both packages.

The accused brought an application to quash the count relating to the second package, arguing there was no evidence of knowledge or control.

The court granted the application, finding that the modus operandi of the two packages was not sufficiently similar to infer knowledge and control of the second package based on the first.

Following a finding of guilt for drug trafficking and related offences, the defendant brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment.

The defendant argued that the police provided him with an opportunity to commit an offence without reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police were legitimately following up on a confidential informant's tip and that the defendant's own responses to an undercover officer's initial inquiries established the requisite reasonable suspicion before any opportunity to traffic was offered.

The applicant, facing two sets of charges for trafficking crystal methamphetamine, sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a newly proposed surety (the applicant's brother) and a strict 24/7 house arrest plan.

Despite the applicant allegedly committing the second set of offences while on bail for the first, the court concluded the new supervision plan, which included a monitored alarm system and relocation to a different city, sufficiently mitigated the substantial likelihood of re-offending.

The application was granted and the applicant was released on a recognizance.

The accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine, two counts of possession of the proceeds of crime, and one count of obstructing justice arising from undercover police drug transactions.

An undercover officer arranged drug purchases through telephone conversations and later met the accused in person for a transaction, during which the accused attempted to conceal the drugs in his mouth when police approached.

The court rejected the defence argument that voice identification and phone evidence were unreliable, finding that visual identification and surrounding circumstances clearly established the accused’s role in arranging and conducting the transactions.

The court concluded that the accused trafficked cocaine and attempted to obstruct police during arrest.

However, the Crown failed to prove that additional cash found in the accused’s wallet constituted proceeds of crime.

The offender was convicted by a jury of trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime following two sales to an undercover police officer.

The Crown sought 12 to 15 months in jail, citing the offender's prior record including firearms and drug offences.

The defence sought 3 to 6 months.

The court weighed the aggravating factors against mitigating factors, including the small quantity of drugs involved and the offender's prospects for rehabilitation.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 months in jail, in addition to 16 days of pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was a passenger in a vehicle stopped for traffic violations.

After being arrested on an outstanding warrant, he was placed in a police cruiser.

Upon arrival at the station, an ounce of crack cocaine was found in the cruiser where he had been seated.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing he was unlawfully detained and searched when police asked for his name during the traffic stop.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the passenger was not detained and asking for identification did not constitute a search.

On the merits, the court found the circumstantial evidence, including feces on the drug packaging and the accused's movements during a pat-down, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the cocaine.

The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking but acquitted of possession of proceeds of crime.