Elizabeth Champion Barefoot

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

The Crown brought a pretrial application for a witness, Jesse Watson, to testify remotely via an audio-video link in a criminal trial.

The application was made under subsections 486.2(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, with the Crown primarily relying on subsection (1) due to the witness's mental disability.

The Defence opposed the application.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the Crown had established the witness's ability to communicate evidence, potential difficulty in doing so due to mental disability, and that the Defence failed to rebut the presumption that the order would not interfere with the proper administration of justice.

The Crown sought to change its position regarding the use of the accused's utterances and statement to police as part of its case at trial, contrary to a recorded pretrial conference position.

The accused opposed this change, arguing it would impair his right to a fair trial.

The court considered the Crown's non-compliance with the Criminal Proceedings Rules and the lack of a compelling explanation for the change.

The court ruled that the Crown must maintain its original position, disallowing the introduction of the utterances/statement as part of its case.

In a multi-count indictment trial involving charges of human trafficking and prostitution, the Defence sought to cross-examine the complainant on three areas: a prior police attendance regarding an unrelated matter, internet postings from October 2015, and testimony from a Newmarket court proceeding in April 2016.

The court ruled that cross-examination on the prior police attendance and the Newmarket court proceedings was admissible.

These areas were deemed highly relevant to the complainant's credibility and the veracity of her allegations, particularly concerning her willingness to engage in prostitution, and were necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence.

The internet postings were found to have limited relevance and were not permitted.

The accused brought pretrial applications challenging various police searches and his statements under sections 8, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found several Charter violations, including an unreasonable "clearing search" of his residence, serious breaches of his right to counsel during police interviews, and an unreasonable search of his parents' residence based on unconstitutionally obtained information.

The court also found a section 8 violation regarding the search of electronic data outside the authorized time period.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded evidence from the clearing search, the accused's statements, and evidence from his parents' residence, but admitted the electronic data due to its importance and minimal impact on the accused's rights.

The applicant, David D’Souza, facing a thirteen-count indictment for human trafficking, prostitution, firearms, and drug offences, brought a pretrial application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court analyzed the 28-month delay from the charge date to the anticipated trial completion, attributing 4.5 months of Crown/institutional delay in the Ontario Court of Justice and 6.5 months in the Superior Court of Justice, totaling 11 months.

This total was found to be below the guidelines set out in R. v. Morin.

While acknowledging some actual prejudice to the accused (exacerbated stress, anxiety, foreclosed employment opportunities, and inability to travel), the court characterized it as between slight and moderate.

Balancing the prejudice against society's interest in having the charges tried on their merits, the court concluded that the delay was not unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The Crown applied for an advance ruling to qualify a police detective as an expert witness in cocaine use, pricing, sale, distribution, and modus operandi for a jury trial involving drug trafficking and other charges.

The defense opposed the application or sought to curtail the evidence.

The court partially granted the application, allowing the expert to provide general information about cocaine and drug trafficking indicators (e.g., money, debt lists) but disallowed specific interpretations of text messages and an ultimate opinion on whether the seized cocaine was for trafficking, finding these unnecessary and too close to the ultimate issue for the jury.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana under 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and possession of break-in instruments contrary to section 351(1) of the Criminal Code.

Police discovered 211 grams of marijuana in the accused's vehicle, along with digital scales, cash, and break-in tools.

The accused held a valid medical marijuana authorization permitting possession of 45 grams only.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including text messages, packaging of marijuana in multiple baggies, and expert testimony regarding street jargon and drug pricing.

The accused testified that all marijuana was for personal use due to chronic pain management.

The court found the accused guilty of trafficking but acquitted him of the break-in tools charge.