Geoffrey Roy

The applicant, a doctor charged with fentanyl trafficking, brought a pre-trial motion under s. 8 of the Charter challenging several search warrants and the manner in which his electronic devices were searched.

The court upheld the initial transmission data warrants and the warrant to search the applicant's home.

However, the court found multiple s. 8 violations regarding the search of the electronic devices, including a lack of specific grounds to search all 15 seized devices, an overly broad authorization to search for photographs, the unauthorized obtaining of a medical software password from a service provider, and the failure to file a Report to Justice.

The application was allowed in accordance with these findings.

Dr. George Otto, charged with fentanyl trafficking, brought a pre-trial motion challenging the constitutionality of Criminal Code provisions (ss. 492.2 and 487.016) authorizing the seizure/production of prospective and historical transmission data.

The core issue was whether the "reasonable suspicion" standard for judicial authorization met the requirements of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court concluded that the "reasonable suspicion" standard was sufficient, finding the data obtained in this case to be minimally intrusive and not revealing core biographical information.

The motion seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant was found in the back seat of a car with a small amount of crack cocaine in his wallet.

The Crown alleged he was jointly in possession with two other men of a large quantity of cocaine in a bag in the front of the vehicle.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by failing to consider the reasonable possibility that the appellant was merely a purchaser of cocaine rather than a drug trafficker.

The court held that the Crown had not negated this reasonable possibility beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore the verdict was unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal was entered.

Liridon Imerovik pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking fentanyl and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He participated in a sophisticated scheme involving a pharmacist and a physician, trafficking an estimated 2780 fentanyl patches over several months.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of fentanyl, the calculated operation, Imerovik's integral role, the large quantity of drugs, and commercial gain.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, first offender status, youthfulness, and impressive efforts to address his fentanyl addiction, which was a significant motivator for his involvement.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives.

A sentence of 6 years in jail was imposed, reduced by 4 months for time spent on house arrest bail, resulting in a net sentence of 5 years and 8 months.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year s. 109(2)(a) order, a life s. 109(2)(b) order, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized cash.

Yolanda Meecham sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, arguing a violation of her s. 8 Charter rights due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court applied the R. v. Garofoli "step six" procedure for redacted ITOs and the R. v. Debot "three Cs" criteria (credibility, compelling, corroboration) for confidential informant information.

Despite acknowledging the ITO's poor drafting and inaccuracies, including a withdrawn charge, the court found that, after excisions and amplification, the ITO met the low threshold for reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

Criminal trial concerning an alleged fentanyl diversion scheme involving a pharmacy, false prescriptions, and a physician supplying prescriptions for illicit distribution.

The court found the evidence, particularly text messages and prescription backdating, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one accused knowingly participated in trafficking fentanyl and possessing it for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected that accused's innocent explanations for the communications and dispensing practices.

As to the co-accused, the court held the evidence directly admissible against him was too ambiguous to safely satisfy the Carter co-conspirator framework and declined to rely on hearsay communications of the co-actors to convict.

One accused was convicted on both counts and the other acquitted on both counts.

The defendants brought applications to exclude evidence obtained during a drug trafficking investigation, alleging Charter violations under sections 8 and 24(2).

The Crown charged both defendants with conspiracy to commit robbery and various firearms and drug offences.

The defendants challenged: (1) police observations made in a condominium hallway on February 22, 2016; (2) the search of a residence on June 9, 2016; and (3) the search of a vehicle incident to arrest.

The court rejected all applications, finding that the police conduct was lawful and that the defendants' reasonable expectations of privacy were not violated.

The accused was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Following a police surveillance operation, the accused was observed meeting with a known drug purchaser at a mall, exchanging a bag containing drugs for a bag containing over $42,000 in cash.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that he had knowledge of the drugs and the proceeds of crime, and alternatively was willfully blind.

The court also admitted intercepted communications under the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The appellant appealed his sentence of 15 months' imprisonment plus two years' probation for possession of 28 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant had pled guilty and was admitted to the Halton Drug Treatment Court program but was expelled after testing positive for cocaine on three occasions and lying about the circumstances of his relapse.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by treating the appellant's failure to fully engage in the program and his dishonesty as aggravating factors.

The court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to nine months' imprisonment, maintaining the probation and section 109 order.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the trial judge lacked jurisdiction over his trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant's jurisdictional argument to be incorrect.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider whether his arrest and detention were arbitrary beyond non-compliance with section 495(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The Court found no basis in the record to conclude the officer's conduct was arbitrary, noting the appellant was found lying on a median beside a busy roadway and volunteered that he possessed marihuana.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic two kilograms of methamphetamine and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

The conviction was based on intercepted communications obtained via a wiretap authorization.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his Garofoli application, refusing leave to cross-examine the affiants, and failing to excise importation references from the affidavit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the police had reached an investigative impasse and established investigative necessity for the wiretap.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the seven-year term was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's record and the need for deterrence.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences.

Police, wishing to protect an ongoing wiretap investigation, directed a traffic officer to conduct a pretext traffic stop of the accused, lie about the reason for the stop, and attempt to obtain consent to search his vehicle.

The accused was not informed of the true reason for his detention or his right to counsel.

When the accused tossed a bag to his wife, multiple officers rushed him, resulting in a physical altercation and broken ribs.

The court found egregious breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant and Regan frameworks, the court concluded that the deliberate police planning to bypass Charter protections constituted an abuse of process.

A stay of proceedings was ordered for all counts.

During a trial for conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances, the Crown sought to introduce ten recorded conversations obtained via a room probe.

The accused opposed the admission of the evidence, arguing the audio quality was too poor to be reliable.

Following a voir dire, the court found that eight of the recordings were largely inaudible and lacked sufficient context to permit a fair and reliable assessment of their substance.

Portions of two recordings were found to be sufficiently clear to meet the threshold test for admissibility, subject to the Crown satisfying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule at trial.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application seeking exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter of evidence obtained under a judicial wiretap authorization.

The court reviewed whether the supporting affidavit disclosed reasonable and probable grounds, provided sufficient particulars of the offences under s. 185(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, and established investigative necessity under s. 186(1)(b).

The court held that some methamphetamine-related grounds were insufficient, but the affidavit still provided ample grounds for the cocaine importation, trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy investigation, and there were adequate grounds to name the applicant because interception of his communications might assist that investigation.

The court further held that investigative necessity was established given the nature of the alleged high-level drug operation and the limited utility of alternative techniques.

The application to exclude the intercepted communications evidence was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and sought leave to appeal his 10-month sentence.

He argued that the trial judge was biased, the verdict was unreasonable, and his trial counsel was incompetent for failing to call him or other witnesses to testify and for abandoning a section 8 Charter application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, that the verdict was reasonable based on the evidence, and that trial counsel's decisions fell within the range of reasonable professional assistance.

Sentencing of three defendants involved in a drug project investigation.

Quan Chan Lao pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking and conspiracy to traffic cocaine and methamphetamine, receiving a net global sentence of 5 years and 11 months after pre-trial custody credit.

Joseph Nestorovski was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic 1 kilogram of cocaine and sentenced to 6 years imprisonment.

Khuan Minh Mac was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic 2 kilograms of methamphetamine and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for serious drug offences.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on drug trafficking and conspiracy charges.

The accused was arrested after police observed a co-accused place a duffle bag containing drugs into the trunk of his car.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding the Crown failed to prove he knew the bag contained drugs.

On appeal, the Crown argued the trial judge erred in applying the Carter test for co-conspirator hearsay and in applying the reasonable doubt standard piecemeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge erred on the first step of the Carter test, the ambiguous hearsay evidence would not have changed the outcome, and the trial judge properly considered the evidence as a whole.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking charges, including the sale of a half kilogram of heroin to an undercover police officer.

He subsequently brought an application to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing that a police agent induced him to sell the drugs in exchange for documents related to a civil lawsuit.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding that he had a personal financial stake in the transactions and was not induced by the offer of documents.

The entrapment application was dismissed.

The defendants applied for leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiant on an application for authorization to intercept private communications, in the context of a Garofoli challenge.

They argued that investigative necessity had not been established and that police prematurely resorted to wiretap authorizations instead of pursuing conventional investigative techniques such as surveillance, informant development, and tracking orders.

The Crown opposed the request, submitting that the authorization materials fully described the investigative steps taken and that cross-examination was unnecessary.

The court held that there was no basis to permit cross-examination, noting there was no suggestion the affiant misled the authorizing judge and that the Garofoli review would proceed based on the existing materials.

The application for cross-examination was dismissed.