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.

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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 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 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.

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.