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.

The appellant appealed convictions for importing opium and possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking arising from a shipment of hydraulic jacks containing concealed narcotics.

The court accepted the respondent’s concession that the trial judge erred by admitting impermissible police opinion evidence and by failing to provide an adequate circumstantial evidence instruction on the standard of proof.

The court also held that additional police opinion evidence about the appellant’s interview demeanour was irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

Although the verdict was not unreasonable on the evidentiary record, the cumulative unfairness required the convictions to be set aside and a new trial ordered.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including MDMA, ketamine, and marihuana, as well as possession of proceeds of crime.

Police executing a search warrant found large quantities of drugs, packaging materials, scales, and currency, indicating mid‑level trafficking activity.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 4.5 years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court held that while denunciation and deterrence were primary objectives for drug trafficking offences, the offender’s lack of prior record, genuine remorse, significant rehabilitation, and strong community support justified restraint.

Applying the conditional sentencing framework in force at the time of the offences, the court imposed a community‑based conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The appellant appealed his convictions for producing marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the search warrant for his residence was invalid because it relied on an anonymous tip that only expressed a suspicion of criminal activity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that while the tip itself was not compelling, the police officer's independent observations of heavy blinds, condensation, and a vent provided sufficient grounds for the warrant.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal based on fresh psychiatric evidence showing the appellant's severe depression and fragility.

The six-month custodial sentence was varied to an 18-month conditional sentence.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial was rendered unfair by numerous instances of improper conduct by Crown counsel, including the use of leading questions to elicit crucial evidence from the primary Crown witness, improper cross-examination of the Crown's own witness, and an abusive cross-examination of the appellant.

The Court of Appeal agreed that Crown counsel's innumerable transgressions of the rules of procedure, combined with the trial judge's failure to intervene and erroneous admission of unqualified expert opinion evidence, deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.