Gary Valiquette

The applicant in a receivership proceeding sought approval of its counsel's fees to be paid from an administration charge.

The Attorney General opposed, arguing that the fees should only cover work related to the receivership and not the concurrent forfeiture proceedings.

The court rejected this distinction, finding that the forfeiture application created barriers to the sale of the business that counsel had to address.

The court found the fees reasonable and approved them.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana arising from intercepted private communications during a police wiretap investigation targeting a street gang.

The Crown relied primarily on intercepted phone calls and text messages between the accused and a co‑conspirator, along with contextual evidence about drug terminology and trafficking practices.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of voice identification, circumstantial evidence linking the accused to a specific phone number, and the interpretation of coded drug language.

The court held that the communications demonstrated a mutual criminal objective to supply drugs to the co‑conspirator’s customers, establishing the actus reus and mens rea of conspiracy.

The accused was found guilty of conspiring to traffic in both cocaine and marijuana.