Eric Lawrence Gilman

The accused, Dominic Wright, faced charges related to drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under the CDSA and Criminal Code, as well as breaches of a release order.

The central issue at trial was whether the accused was in constructive possession of controlled substances and cash found in a condo unit.

The court found the accused in constructive possession of fentanyl and cash in the kitchen and bedroom closet, applying the principles of circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in constructive possession of fentanyl found in the dryer.

The accused was found guilty of most charges, including possession for the purpose of trafficking (oxycodone, MDMA, fentanyl in kitchen/closet), possession of proceeds of crime, and most breaches of a release order, but not guilty of possession of fentanyl in the dryer or the cell phone breach.

Andrew Francis was charged with drug offences following a warranted search.

He brought a Garofoli application to quash the search warrant and exclude evidence, arguing a lack of reasonable grounds.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO), including redacted confidential informer privilege information, and found sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the warrant's issuance.

The application was dismissed, and no Section 8 Charter violation was found.

Kyle Megill was found guilty by a jury of six counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of possessing proceeds of crime.

He operated a sophisticated "drug boutique" from his penthouse, dealing in large quantities of Schedule I, II, and III drugs.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence requested 23 months less a day, citing the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and mental health struggles.

The court considered general sentencing principles, aggravating factors (large-scale, for-profit operation, dangerous drugs), and mitigating factors (youth, first offender, family support, attempts at rehabilitation).

The court imposed a sentence of five years' imprisonment, along with a section 109 order for 10 years, a DNA order, and a victim surcharge.

The defendant, Courtney Dennis, challenged the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and the subsequent search incident to arrest, arguing a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The police relied on information from a confidential informant, corroborated by police investigation and the defendant's criminal record.

The court found that the arresting officer had subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, satisfying the criteria for informant reliability and corroboration as established in Debot.

Consequently, the arrest was lawful, the search incident to arrest was authorized, and the seized evidence was admissible at trial.

The applicant, Javoni Palma, facing a charge of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought three applications at the outset of his trial, alleging violations of his section 7 and section 9 Charter rights.

The applications sought exclusion of evidence or a stay of proceedings, based on claims of arbitrary detention, excessive force during arrest, and lost video evidence from seized iPhones.

The court dismissed all three applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds for investigative detention, did not use excessive force, and that the alleged lost evidence was either irrelevant or not proven to have been tampered with by police.

The applicants, Everald Brissett and Courtney Benjamin, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in their criminal trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The total delay was 36 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found five months of "defence delay" and four months of "exceptional circumstances" delay, reducing the relevant delay to 27 months, below the ceiling.

Additionally, the "transitional exceptional circumstance" from Jordan applied, as the parties reasonably relied on the pre-Jordan law.

The application was dismissed.

This criminal trial concerned a large-scale drug trafficking operation, 'Project Odyssey,' which led to the seizure of significant quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, and GHB.

Six defendants were arraigned, with one passing away during the trial.

The court addressed preliminary motions regarding confidential informant privilege and a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct, both of which were dismissed.

The core issues at trial involved proving possession, knowledge, and intent for trafficking and importing charges, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and the Supreme Court's guidance on circumstantial evidence from *R. v. Villaroman*.

Ultimately, four defendants were convicted of trafficking, while one was fully acquitted.

Importing charges against two defendants were dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

Joseph Andrews was found guilty after trial of five drug trafficking offences involving cocaine, marijuana, and psilocybin, with a total street value between $32,800 and $39,300.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary term, while the defence requested a maximum reformatory sentence of two years less a day, emphasizing the offender's rehabilitation and family ties.

The court, applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, found the offender was a multi-ounce level drug dealer, not merely a courier.

Considering aggravating factors (large quantities, financial gain) and mitigating factors (dated record, strong family support, rehabilitation prospects, onerous pre-trial release conditions), the court imposed a four-year prison sentence, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition, forfeiture of drugs, paraphernalia, and proceeds of crime, and a DNA order.

The accused, Randeep Sandhu, brought a mid-trial motion seeking disclosure of a confidential informant's identity and a stay of proceedings, arguing the informant was either a police agent or a material witness.

The court conducted an in-camera hearing and an open-court hearing, ultimately finding that the informant was not a police agent and that the "innocence at stake" exception to informer privilege was not engaged, as Sandhu failed to demonstrate the informant was likely to provide evidence creating reasonable doubt about his innocence.

The motion was dismissed.

Joseph Andrews was charged with possession of cocaine, marijuana, and psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized under search warrants, alleging violations of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the search warrants valid and any other breaches minor and not warranting exclusion.

Following the Charter application, the trial proceeded, and the court found Andrews guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts based on circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control of the drugs found in his truck and a storage unit.

The accused was convicted of trafficking in a substance held out to be cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

At sentencing, the Crown sought the mandatory minimum punishment of one year imprisonment pursuant to section 5(3)(a)(i)(D) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, based on the accused's prior trafficking conviction.

The defence objected on the grounds that inadequate notice was given, arguing that written notice was required rather than the verbal notice provided at a pre-trial.

The court rejected this argument and imposed the mandatory minimum sentence.

The defendants were charged with multiple offences under the Food and Drugs Act relating to the sale, importation, and advertising of 1-(Phenylmethyl) Piperazine (BZP), a synthetic substance sold under brand names including Freq, Peaq, Rush, Rush 2, Spun, and Flow.

The Crown alleged the defendants sold these products without proper drug identification numbers (DINs), without filing new drug submissions, and without proper labeling.

The defendants argued that Health Canada had not determined BZP was a drug during the relevant timeframe and that the charges were duplicative.

The court found that the Crown proved the actus reus of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, that Adam Wookey was the controlling mind of Purepillz Corporation, and that Health Canada had clearly identified BZP as a drug subject to regulation from at least April 2008 onward.

The court convicted on counts 1-6, 8-13, 29, and 33, and stayed counts 15-20 and 22-27 as duplicative under the Kienapple principle.

All charges against Pure Principles Inc. were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Crown charged the defendants with offences under the Food and Drug Act for selling BZP (1-Benzyl-Piperazine) capsules without obtaining required drug identification numbers and establishment licenses.

The defendants moved for a directed verdict, arguing that BZP products marketed for recreational purposes do not fall within the definition of "drug" under the Food and Drug Act.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the Act applies to substances that modify organic functions regardless of whether medicinal claims are made, and that the legislation's purpose is to protect Canadians from potentially harmful substances.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with drug and firearm-related offences following a search warrant executed at his residence.

The defendant brought a Charter s. 8 motion challenging the validity of the search warrant on the grounds that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was legally deficient and that the search violated his right to privacy.

The court found that the affiant made material misstatements and omissions in the ITO, including mischaracterizing a witness as a confidential informant, failing to disclose relevant information about the witness's credibility and relationship with the defendant, and providing incomplete information about the defendant's criminal record.

The court determined that paragraphs containing information from the mischaracterized witness must be excised from the ITO.

After excision, the remaining information from the legitimate confidential informant was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the search warrant.

Additionally, the court found that there was no evidentiary foundation to believe the firearm would be found at the defendant's residence.

The search warrant was set aside as improvidently issued, and the evidence seized was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Sentencing following convictions for three counts of trafficking crack cocaine and one count of possession of proceeds of crime after undercover police purchases.

The offender, a first-time offender with refugee status and no prior record, sold small quantities of crack cocaine on three occasions and was arrested with marked buy money.

The court considered the sentencing principles under s.718 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while also weighing the offender’s rehabilitative efforts and lack of prior criminal history.

Applying the framework for conditional sentences under s.742.1 and the guidance in R. v. Proulx, the court concluded that the risk of re‑offending was minimal and that a community-based sanction could achieve the objectives of sentencing.

A conditional sentence of imprisonment followed by probation was imposed.