Eric Angevine

The accused, Luke Adam Martin, was convicted of two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking involving large quantities of fentanyl and methamphetamine, alongside guilty pleas to theft, possession of break-in instruments, and breach of probation.

The court considered the serious nature of the offences, the large quantities of drugs involved, the presence of firearms, and the accused’s prior criminal record and probation status.

The accused’s submissions to treat the drug possession as a fleeting courier incident and to exclude firearms as an aggravating factor were rejected.

The court imposed a sentence of 13 years for fentanyl trafficking and 6 years concurrent for methamphetamine trafficking, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Luke Adam Martin guilty of two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and fentanyl found in a 2012 Ford Escape.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on evidence that Martin had control and knowledge of the drugs and firearms found in the vehicle.

The defence conceded possession and trafficking elements but argued Martin lacked knowledge of the drugs, attributing possession to a co-accused, Brandon Pfeiffer.

The court rejected this defence, finding Pfeiffer's testimony implausible and Martin's denials not credible, especially given the quantity and value of the drugs, Martin's control of the vehicle, and his wearing of latex gloves at arrest.

The court concluded Martin's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The defendant, Alicia Braid, faced an application for a recognizance (peace bond) under s.810 of the Criminal Code, brought by Brandi Nunes (the informant) on behalf of her child, AN, alleging reasonable fear of personal injury due to threatening behaviour.

The court found that while the child had subjective fear, this fear was not objectively reasonable.

The court declined to create a modified objective standard for reasonable fear for children, emphasizing that the same objective standard of "reasonableness" must apply to all complainants regardless of age.

The informant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the complainant had a reasonable fear of psychological harm.

The application for recognizance was dismissed.

Raven Joseph-Soroka and Ashley Wilson were charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on police surveillance of the accused's movements and the items found in their vehicle, including fentanyl, a digital scale, numerous small baggies, and cash.

The court found that when viewed cumulatively and in light of human experience, the circumstantial evidence excluded any reasonable alternative explanations for the accused's activities, leading to convictions for both accused on both charges.

Joseph-Soroka was found to be a party to Wilson's trafficking under s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and luring a person under 16.

The luring charge was dismissed by the Crown.

The court dismissed the invitation to sexual touching charge, finding no positive act of invitation by the accused.

However, the court found the accused guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference, accepting the complainant's testimony despite her perceived lack of detail, and rejecting the defence's argument that her testimony was unreliable based on ungrounded common-sense assumptions about how a complainant should act.

The court applied the rules against ungrounded common-sense assumptions and stereotypical inferences in assessing credibility.