Faiyaz Alibhai

The defendants, Basil Dixon and Nathan Brown, were charged with conspiracy to import cocaine following a large-scale police investigation ("Project Southam").

The trial, heard by a judge alone, relied heavily on intercepted communications and surveillance.

The court found that voice identification evidence from a detective constable was unreliable due to limited exposure and lack of formal training.

However, based on circumstantial evidence, including intercepts and surveillance footage, the court identified Dixon as "B" and Brown as "R" in the communications.

Applying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, the court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon conspired to import cocaine from Guyana (Count One) and that both Dixon and Brown conspired to import cocaine using a pilot (Count Three).

Giedrius Kesminas was tried on two counts: conspiracy to import cocaine (Count 7) and conspiracy to utter forged documents (Count 11), stemming from "Project Southam." The Crown's case relied heavily on wiretap evidence.

Kesminas denied participation, claiming he only pretended to agree to the cocaine importation scheme.

The court applied the two-step Carter analysis for conspiracy membership, rejecting Kesminas's "pretence" defence and finding him an enthusiastic participant.

Kesminas was convicted beyond a reasonable doubt on Count 7.

However, the court reserved its decision on Count 11 due to a material discrepancy between the indictment's particularization (registering a property in Helen Lauro's name) and the evidence presented (obtaining a mortgage for Hans Lauro), citing the principle from R. v. Saunders that the offence as particularized must be proved.

This ruling addresses an application by Devante Moores to exclude evidence seized following the execution of a search warrant and his arrest, alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and 9 (arbitrary detention).

The applicant challenged the validity of the search warrant, arguing the judicial summary of redacted information was insufficient, and the lawfulness of his arrest.

The court clarified the onus of proof, stating the Crown bears the onus for warrantless searches incident to arrest, while the applicant bears the onus for challenging a presumptively valid search warrant.

The court found the judicial summary sufficient and determined that police surveillance, combined with information from a reliable confidential source, provided reasonable grounds for the search warrant.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the arresting officer had subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking, making the subsequent search incident to arrest lawful.

Consequently, the applications to exclude the seized evidence were dismissed.

Ali Lalji was found guilty after trial of conspiring to import 40 kilograms of cocaine into Australia.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the large quantity of cocaine and Lalji's trusted position as a deputy in the conspiracy, and mitigating factors, including his lack of prior convictions, strong community support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Applying sentencing principles, including denunciation, general deterrence, and parity with co-conspirators, the court sentenced the offender to nine years' imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

This ruling addresses the sufficiency of a judicial summary provided by the Crown in place of a heavily redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant.

The applicant challenged the adequacy of the summary, arguing it did not provide enough information to allow for a proper challenge.

The court, applying principles from Crevier, 2015 ONCA 619, found the judicial summary sufficient, noting that it must inform the accused of the general nature of the redacted details without revealing privileged information.

The court dismissed the applicant's challenge, stating that the summary was adequate to allow the applicant to challenge the excised material.

This ruling addresses a motion brought by the accused, Devante Moores, to challenge the lawfulness of a search and seizure of narcotics and currency from a residential unit.

The Crown argued that the accused lacked standing to bring the application, alleging that the lease for the unit was obtained through fraudulent documentation.

The court applied the factors from R. v. Edwards to determine whether the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy, distinguishing the case from R. v. Van Duong.

The court found that despite the alleged fraudulent lease, the accused demonstrated sufficient indicia of possession, control, and ability to regulate access to establish a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy, thereby granting him standing to challenge the search.

The appellant, Vanessa Canlas, appealed a fine of $833,238 imposed after her conviction for fraud, arguing errors in the calculation of the fine.

Specifically, she contended that the sentencing judge failed to account for cash payments made to her employees and incorrectly attributed $2.213 million as income.

She also argued that only J.V. Variety's commission from certain payments should have been included as income, with the balance deducted from misappropriated funds.

The Court of Appeal found no merit in these submissions, noting that the sentencing judge had already addressed these arguments with clear and cogent reasons.

The court found no basis to interfere with the sentencing judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction and five-year sentence for importing opium and related offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's credibility findings regarding Crown witnesses.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, concluding that the five-year sentence was not unreasonable, especially considering the appellant's previous convictions for similar drug offences.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of information to obtain (ITO) documents for tracking, general, and search warrants, arguing the search was unreasonable and evidence should be excluded.

The court granted leave for cross-examination on six specific areas concerning potential misstatements, omissions, or exaggerations in the ITOs, finding a reasonable likelihood that such cross-examination would assist in determining the grounds for warrant issuance.

Leave was denied for other areas deemed facial challenges or not likely to assist.

The issue of cross-examination regarding a confidential informant was deferred pending a judicial summary.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to import cocaine.

The conspiracy involved the importation of approximately 40 kilograms of cocaine (28 kilograms pure) into Australia with a street value of approximately $20 million.

The accused, a 23-year-old journalist at the time of the offence, recruited and directed multiple couriers to transport the drugs.

The court determined the accused was a middle-man in the conspiracy rather than a principal or leader, and imposed a sentence of nine years imprisonment, less presentence custody credit of 113 days.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized from his vehicle, arguing a six-hour delay in accessing counsel violated his s. 10(b) rights.

The court found the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) rights due to inadequate resource allocation, which constituted a serious institutional disregard for Charter rights.

The evidence was found to be temporally and contextually connected to the breach.

Applying the *Grant* factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, thus excluding the heroin and other items seized from the vehicle.

The accused, Sabrullah Khan, was charged with trafficking heroin.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the transfer of a package containing 991.36 grams of heroin to an individual (Mr. Rilling) whom Khan did not know, in suspicious circumstances.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Khan knew the package contained heroin or was wilfully blind to its contents.

The court considered the totality of circumstantial evidence, including the absence of direct evidence and the evidence that Mr. Hatemi (the drug network leader) often employed "blind couriers." The court found that while an inference of knowledge was reasonable, it was not the *only* reasonable inference, as it was also plausible that Khan was an unwitting courier.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove knowledge or wilful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt, and Khan was found not guilty.

Garey Harris, charged with drug trafficking and firearm offences, brought an application under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained through police search and seizure.

The court found Harris had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his condominium unit but not in the common areas or in video images of another person.

The court determined there were reasonable grounds for Harris's arrest and exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless entry to secure the unit.

However, police remaining in the unit for approximately seven hours pending the issuance of a search warrant constituted a breach of Harris's Charter right to be free from unreasonable search.

Despite this breach and material omissions in the Information to Obtain a warrant, the court found the warrant was valid as it could have been issued even with full disclosure.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court concluded that the Charter breach was not egregious, no evidence was obtained as a result of the breach, and the evidence was highly reliable and vital to the serious charges.

Therefore, admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and the application to exclude the evidence was denied.

The applicant, who was facing drug trafficking charges, brought an application under s. 490(10) of the Criminal Code for the return of $11,700 and US$20 seized from his parents' home.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because it intended to seek forfeiture of the funds if a conviction was obtained.

The court held that a bare assertion of future intent to seek forfeiture, without any evidence connecting the funds to the alleged offence, does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to order the return of property.

As the applicant provided uncontradicted evidence that the funds were from a lawful business, the application was granted and the funds were ordered returned.

The applicant, Huntley Golding, sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights due to the confidential source's alleged lack of credibility and reliability, and the Information to Obtain (ITO) failing to establish a reasonable probability of illegal drugs.

The court, applying the Garofoli test, found that the issuing justice had a sufficient basis to grant the warrant, considering the totality of circumstances and the compelling first-hand information provided by the informant, despite her criminal record and motive to lie.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with trafficking methamphetamine, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was over 38 months.

The court found that the Crown's decision to prosecute the applicant jointly with other co-accused in a larger investigation unnecessarily complicated and delayed his straightforward case.

Applying the frameworks from both Morin and Jordan, the court concluded the delay was unreasonable and directed a stay of proceedings.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown proceeded largely through filed 540(7) materials.

The court applied the test for committal, which requires determining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonably instructed jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case involved circumstantial evidence and required careful analysis of inferences that could be properly drawn from the evidence presented.

The accused, Terrence Kum, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging abuse of process due to the Crown's historical and deliberate non-disclosure of relevant information and the loss of evidentiary material.

The application centered on alleged police misconduct within the Toronto Airport Drug Enforcement Unit (TADEU), specifically concerning Officer Ross Adair's involvement in a prior investigation (Project E-Plug) where notes were falsified.

The defence argued that the Crown's disclosure regarding TADEU corruption was insufficient and prejudiced the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court found that while the Crown could have provided more comprehensive disclosure, the information provided was sufficient to put previous defence counsel on notice.

The court determined that the defence failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing further disclosure and that the misconduct, while egregious, did not relate directly to the accused's case (Project O’Cook) to the extent that it warranted a stay.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that the conduct did not meet the "clearest of cases" threshold for a stay, and the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial provided an adequate alternative remedy.

The accused were involved in a large-scale marijuana trafficking operation.

Following guilty findings based on Agreed Statements of Fact, the court proceeded to sentencing.

The primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation were emphasized, particularly given the commercial nature and significant profits involved.

The court rejected arguments to delay sentencing based on anticipated changes to marijuana laws, affirming the rule of law.

State misconduct in the investigation, while acknowledged, was deemed to have negligible impact on sentencing.

Credit was given for onerous bail conditions and the efficient conduct of the trial through Agreed Statements of Fact.

Conditional sentences were deemed inappropriate, with penitentiary sentences warranted for all accused.

The accused was charged with possession of MDMA, ketamine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and with producing those substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police discovered a large-scale clandestine drug laboratory inside a residence containing approximately 150 kilograms of finished drugs and extensive manufacturing equipment in plain view.

The accused was found inside the residence and his personal documents were located there.

The court held that the pervasive presence of drugs, odour, and equipment established the accused’s knowledge of the operation and that his presence and conduct supported an inference of control sufficient for constructive possession for the purpose of trafficking.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the production process.