unnamed police officer

The Ontario Court of Justice found Larry Bomberry guilty of possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing property obtained by crime.

Despite thin evidence of active trafficking at the time of arrest, the court held that the quantity of drugs (62.48 grams) and over $1,400 in cash supported the inference that Bomberry possessed the drugs as part of an ongoing trafficking operation.

The court rejected Bomberry’s claim that the drugs were for personal use based on implausible explanations for his cash, inconsistent timeline evidence, and expert testimony on trafficking indicia.

The decision applies the W.(D.) principles and the Villaroman circumstantial evidence framework to conclude that trafficking was the only reasonable inference.

The appellant, Benjamin MacAdam, appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking and his sentence.

The appeal centered on the trial judge's handling of expert evidence regarding the quantity of drugs seized (112 grams of cocaine) and whether it was consistent with trafficking or personal use.

The Court of Appeal found that while the police officer expert was properly qualified, the trial judge erred by misapprehending the expert's testimony.

Specifically, the trial judge failed to adequately consider the expert's concession that the seized quantity could be consistent with personal use for a heavy user in a remote area, and improperly required the defence to establish hypothetical scenarios with proven facts to raise reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the Crown had not discharged its burden of proving trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and sought leave to appeal his sentence of 48 months' imprisonment.

Following a search warrant execution, police found five 100 microgram fentanyl patches and other drugs.

The appellant pleaded guilty to simple possession but the Crown rejected this plea.

He was convicted after trial of possession for the purpose of trafficking based primarily on expert police opinion regarding the quantity.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge improperly abdicated his role by deferring entirely to the expert's opinion on the ultimate issue.

The conviction was set aside and substituted with a conviction for simple possession.

The sentence was reduced to one day of imprisonment in addition to time already served, as the appellant had already served over three years.