Faiyaz Alibhai

The applicant sought exclusion of evidence discovered after police entered a residence without a warrant and arrested him in connection with drug production and trafficking offences.

The issue was whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the dwelling sufficient to challenge the search under s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the factors from Edwards and related authorities, the court examined the applicant’s connection to the premises.

The evidence established only that the applicant was present in the house and had left a bag of personal effects there.

The court concluded there was no evidence of ownership, control, historical use, or a subjective expectation of privacy, and therefore the applicant lacked standing to challenge the search.

The Crown applied for the forfeiture of personal property bearing the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club (HAMC) insignia seized from the residences of individual members and the Toronto clubhouse, arguing it was offence-related property under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The individual respondents had been convicted of various drug trafficking offences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while membership in the HAMC facilitated the drug transactions by providing a trustworthy network, the physical items bearing the insignia were not used to commit the offences, nor was it proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they were intended to be used for such purposes.

The Crown applied under s.16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for forfeiture of a motorcycle club clubhouse alleged to be offence-related property following convictions of several members for drug trafficking offences.

The court held that the clubhouse facilitated drug trafficking activities, including meetings, negotiations, and at least one drug transaction, and therefore qualified as offence-related property committed in relation to the offences.

The respondent corporation failed to establish that it was an innocent owner under s.19(3), as the property was effectively controlled by members of the organization involved in the offences.

The court also rejected relief under s.19.1(3), finding forfeiture was not disproportionate given the seriousness of the offences, the role of the property, and its fortified nature.

The Crown sought forfeiture of real property under s. 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following convictions of several members of a motorcycle club for drug trafficking and conspiracy offences.

Evidence showed that the property functioned as the clubhouse and operational hub for members involved in trafficking cocaine, oxycodone, and GHB, and was used for meetings, negotiations, and transactions connected to those offences.

The court held that trial evidence from the related criminal proceedings could be relied upon in the forfeiture hearing and concluded that the property was “offence‑related property” because it facilitated networking and discussions integral to the drug trafficking activities.

The respondent corporation failed to establish that it was an innocent owner or that it was sufficiently separate from the convicted offenders, many of whom were de facto shareholders or controlling members of the organization.

The court further held that forfeiture was not disproportionate given the seriousness, scale, and commercial nature of the offences and the fortified nature of the property.

In a criminal sentencing decision following trial convictions under ss. 5(2) and 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the court addressed large-scale production and possession for the purpose of trafficking in MDMA, methamphetamine, and ketamine from a clandestine laboratory.

The evidence established a high-capacity operation with significant public-safety and health risks, including deceptive marketing of tablets containing highly addictive methamphetamine.

The court treated denunciation and general deterrence as paramount, relying on comparator jurisprudence and the seriousness of domestic synthetic-drug production.

Applying aggravating and mitigating factors individually, the court imposed lengthy penitentiary terms on all three offenders, with concurrent sentences on each count and ancillary DNA and firearms-prohibition orders.