Elizabeth Pamela Bellerose

The applicant sought to exclude evidence of drugs seized at the time of his arrest, alleging breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

The court found three s. 10(b) breaches: two instances of police failing to hold off questioning and an unreasonable 40-minute delay in providing access to counsel at the police division.

Applying the Grant factors for s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the court found the breaches serious but not systemic, the impact on the accused's Charter interests relatively minor due to no causal connection to the evidence, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favored inclusion as the evidence was reliable.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

Adrian Bissoon pleaded guilty to three counts of cocaine trafficking and one count of offering a prohibited firearm for sale.

This decision addresses a Gardiner hearing to determine aggravating facts for sentencing.

The Crown sought to establish that the accused was involved in a commercial drug trafficking operation and intended to sell a firearm.

The court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was an active commercial-level cocaine dealer, considering this an aggravating factor.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused intended to sell a firearm, concluding that his representations were mere puffery.

Therefore, the offer to sell a firearm was not considered an aggravating factor.

Khary White was found guilty of two counts of trafficking cocaine, one count of obstruct justice, and one count of possession of the proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought 18 months to 2 years incarceration, while the defence proposed 90 days custody for trafficking/obstruct and a 12-month conditional sentence for proceeds of crime.

The court considered White's prior record, the nature of the offences (street-level sales, non-violent obstruction), and significant community and family support.

Emphasizing rehabilitation, the court sentenced White to 6 months in custody for trafficking and obstruct, with credit for pre-trial custody, followed by a 12-month conditional sentence for possession of proceeds of crime, subject to various conditions including house arrest.

A 10-year firearms prohibition and a DNA order were also imposed.

Mr. Young was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

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

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant quantity of crack cocaine, the offender's lengthy criminal record with prior drug and violent offences, and the fact that the current offences were committed while a previous drug sentence had not expired.

Mitigating factors included strong family support, onerous house arrest bail conditions for nearly 41 months (35 months prohibiting employment, 27 months requiring a surety's presence), and positive rehabilitative efforts.

The court determined that denunciation and deterrence were the predominant sentencing principles, making a conditional sentence inappropriate given the offender's history of breaching release conditions.

After crediting for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail, a net sentence of 20 months imprisonment was imposed, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a forfeiture order for $5.00.

Kevine Brown was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of heroin (over one kilogram), the accused's wilful blindness to the package's contents, and his willingness to expose his sister to significant risk.

Mitigating factors included his severe health problems and family support.

The court emphasized general deterrence as the primary sentencing principle for major drug cases.

A sentence of nine years in the penitentiary was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody resulting in a net sentence of seven years and one month.

The accused, Abdullahi Abti Rage, was charged with multiple counts of trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

A key evidentiary issue arose regarding the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a co-actor, Ali Ahmed, to an undercover officer.

The defence argued these statements were for narrative only, while the Crown sought to admit them for their truth under the co-conspirator's exception.

The court found the statements presumptively admissible under the R. v. Carter test but acknowledged a miscommunication between counsel regarding their use.

Despite the miscommunication, the court determined that even without relying on the hearsay for its truth, the direct evidence overwhelmingly proved the accused's guilt on the cocaine trafficking and possession charges.

The accused was found guilty of three counts of trafficking cocaine, one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and the lesser included offence of simple possession of marijuana.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with conspiracy to import heroin from Tanzania and Uganda, importing heroin from Tanzania, and possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking.

The Crown presented evidence of two intercepted packages containing heroin destined for the accused's address.

While the accused conceded sufficient evidence existed for the possession for trafficking count, the court found insufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial on the importation and conspiracy counts.

The court held that the evidence could not bridge the inferential gap between the accused's knowledge of the package's arrival and his participation in the actual importation process, as no evidence connected him to the arrangements required to bring the drugs across the border.

The applicant was charged with unlawful production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought an application under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging that his right to a trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) had been infringed.

The court found that the applicant had suffered Crown delay of approximately two months, institutional delay of approximately 14 months and 13 days, and actual prejudice to both his liberty and security interests.

The operative delay of 16 months and 13 days exceeded the Morin guidelines by approximately six and a half months.

Balancing all factors, including the seriousness of the offences against the applicant's prejudice and the institutional failures to expedite the proceedings, the court granted the application and stayed the charges.