Elizabeth Champion Barefoot

The offender, a 22-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of possession of 247.5 g of fentanyl and 93.4 g of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found him to be a mid-level, profit-motivated trafficker.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of prior record, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, for which he received six months of Duncan credit.

The court emphasized the devastating impact of fentanyl on the community and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years for the fentanyl charge and 4 years concurrent for the methamphetamine charge, leaving 1016 days to serve after pre-sentence and Duncan credits.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of psilocybin, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

The Crown sought a sentence of five to six years, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's role as the primary caregiver for his two young daughters as a mitigating factor, but noted the serious nature of trafficking 202 grams of methamphetamine from a residence where children were present.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the statutory bar for sentences over two years and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment for the trafficking charge, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The court considered whether police infringed the accused’s rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter by delaying the right to counsel and failing to promptly inform him of increased jeopardy after a search revealed drugs and a gun.

The court found breaches of both rights but concluded, after a Grant analysis, that the evidence should not be excluded.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The court sentenced Tahir Ali for multiple drug trafficking offences, including fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine, oxycodone, and benzodiazepine, as well as possession of ammunition while subject to a weapons prohibition.

The decision reviews the devastating impact of the opioid crisis on individuals, families, and Indigenous communities in Grey-Bruce, Ontario.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including Ali’s prior record, health, and time spent in lockdown.

Drawing on recent appellate guidance, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years for the drug offences and a consecutive 6-month sentence for the weapons prohibition breach, less credit for pre-trial custody.

Following his conviction by a jury on 13 counts of drug trafficking, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of entrapment.

He argued that undercover police officers went beyond providing an opportunity and induced him to commit the offences, particularly during the first transaction where he sold fentanyl to an officer.

The court preferred the evidence of the police officers over the accused's testimony, finding that the officer's requests were not persistent or exploitative of the accused's vulnerabilities.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the accused was a willing participant and the police did not induce the offences, resulting in the dismissal of the entrapment application.

The court considered an application to exclude drug evidence on the basis of alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant, Zachary Telford, was arrested for impaired operation after being found asleep in his vehicle, and subsequently charged with possession of fentanyl and other drugs.

The court found that there were reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the subsequent searches and demands were lawful.

The only Charter breach identified was a 20-minute delay in facilitating access to duty counsel, which was found to be minor and not to justify exclusion of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Tahir Ali, was charged with multiple counts of possession of various drugs for the purpose of trafficking, unsafe storage of firearms, unlawful possession of firearms, and possession of firearms/ammunition while prohibited.

At trial, the accused admitted continuity of seized items, his weapons prohibition, and that the drugs were for trafficking.

The central issue was his knowledge and control over the seized items.

The court found that a business associated with the accused was a sham.

Based on extensive circumstantial evidence, including TDR cell phone data, cell phone downloads, personal documents, and the large quantities of drugs, the court concluded that the accused had knowing possession and control over the drugs and ammunition.

Consequently, Ali was found guilty of all drug trafficking charges and possession of ammunition while prohibited.

However, he was found not guilty of the firearms charges related to two rifles found in a Kincardine house, as the Crown failed to prove his knowing possession beyond a reasonable doubt, given their location and the presence of other residents.

The offender, Lezane Okimaw, pleaded guilty to impaired operation causing bodily harm after a head-on collision that resulted in devastating, life-altering injuries to the victim.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a high blood alcohol concentration and the severity of the victim's injuries.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, and sustained sobriety since the incident.

Crucially, the court applied Gladue principles, recognizing the profound impact of intergenerational trauma from residential schools on the offender's moral blameworthiness and addiction.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed an eighteen-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 21-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months of probation, a 21-month driving prohibition, and mandatory weapons prohibitions, finding that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the Gladue factors and the offender's rehabilitation efforts, and would not endanger community safety.

Jennifer Deacon pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl and breach of undertaking.

The court considered her lengthy criminal history, substance use disorder, and mental health issues.

Applying principles of denunciation, specific and general deterrence, and separation, the court sentenced her to 1,348 days imprisonment for fentanyl trafficking and 30 days consecutive for breach of undertaking, with recommendations for treatment.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of nearly one kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought time served.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record, including prior drug trafficking convictions, as a significant aggravating factor.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, including extensive lockdowns.

The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Jasper Dieter, brought an application to quash a search warrant for his residence, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds for its issuance.

The court reviewed the ITO, including redacted portions and information from confidential informants and Crime Stoppers tips, applying the "reasonable grounds to believe" standard.

Despite some criticisms regarding dated information, conclusory statements, and surveillance not fully corroborating expectations, the court found that the totality of the circumstances, including detailed information from multiple sources and corroboration of neutral details, provided the justice of the peace with a strong basis to issue the warrant.

The application to quash the search warrant was dismissed.

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.

Daniel Currant pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marihuana and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police seized over 1 kg of cocaine, nearly 4 kg of cutting agent, and 351 cannabis plants.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity and high purity of cocaine, and mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, lack of prior record, and health issues.

Despite his cocaine addiction, the court found his motivation was financial gain.

The Crown sought 8 years, the defence 4 years.

The court imposed a sentence of six years in a penitentiary, less four months credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a total remaining sentence of five years and eight months.

Orders for forfeiture, s. 109 prohibition, and DNA were also issued.

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 accused, Leroy David Dirckx, was charged with producing cannabis marihuana.

The Crown's case relied on an Agreed Statement of Fact and photographs, while the accused testified, denying involvement.

The court considered whether the accused produced the substance through "cultivating" or "harvesting." The court rejected the Crown's "harvesting" argument based on the accused's admission of cutting down unhealthy plants for medicinal salvage, distinguishing it from large-scale harvesting for drying.

However, based on circumstantial evidence including proximity to grow sites, prior indoor cultivation, financial motive (high hydro costs), and photographic evidence of active involvement with plants and tools, the court found the accused guilty of cultivating or helping to cultivate the outdoor marihuana plants beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's testimony was deemed illogical and contradictory.

Leroy Dirckx was found guilty of production of cannabis marihuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after a non-jury trial.

The grow sites were located on a third party's property, but the production was for personal medicinal use, not trafficking.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of 60-90 days, while the Defence requested a fine of $3000-$5000.

Considering the principles of sentencing, particularly parity with a co-accused who received a Conditional Sentence Order, and the fact that a Conditional Sentence Order was not available to Dirckx, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, a secondary DNA order, and a victim fine surcharge.