Geoffrey Roy

The accused brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter after approximately 34.5 months in custody awaiting trial on multiple drug and firearm trafficking charges arising from a large multi‑accused investigation.

Applying the framework from R. v. Morin and R. v. Askov, the court examined the allocation of delay between inherent time, defence actions, Crown conduct, and institutional delay.

The court found the prosecution involved complex multi‑accused proceedings, extensive disclosure, a preliminary inquiry including a Dawson application challenging wiretap authorizations, and multiple defence‑initiated adjournments and counsel changes.

Institutional delay was determined to be within acceptable limits and much of the elapsed time was attributable to inherent or defence‑related factors.

The applicant failed to establish significant prejudice beyond the normal hardships of pre‑trial custody.

The application for a stay of proceedings was therefore dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to export ecstasy and marihuana, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of cocaine and ecstasy for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 5 to 6.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence, emphasizing the offender's recent motherhood and ADHD diagnosis.

The court found that while the offender's role was integral, she was not a principal in the operation.

Balancing the gravity of the offences with her personal circumstances, the court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 30 months.

During a trial involving wiretap evidence, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings after all evidence had been called and closing addresses completed.

The accused alleged that the Crown failed to disclose contact information and particulars regarding two individuals, which impaired his ability to make full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused failed to pursue disclosure diligently, did not establish prejudice, and that a stay of proceedings is a remedy of last resort not justified in these circumstances.

The offender was convicted of multiple serious drug offences, including importing cocaine and exporting ecstasy, as well as firearms offences.

At sentencing, the defence argued that the offender's difficult youth in a crime-ridden neighbourhood as an African Canadian should mitigate his sentence, analogous to the Gladue principles for Aboriginal offenders.

The court rejected this argument, finding no evidentiary link between his early childhood and his commercial drug enterprise at age 40.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced by 6 years for pre-trial custody.

The appellants appealed their convictions for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that the convictions relied on the theory that the appellant Jean purchased the drugs from the appellant Kapend and a co-accused, and was in possession of the entirety of the drugs hidden in a container in a vehicle.

The Court of Appeal held that the evidence could not reasonably support the inference that Jean had knowledge of the cocaine secreted in the container.

As the Crown conceded that Kapend's conviction could not stand if Jean's conviction was quashed, both convictions were quashed and acquittals entered.

The applicant, charged with terrorism offences, was denied bail by a justice of the peace and twice by superior court judges.

After a direct indictment was filed, he applied to a single judge of the Court of Appeal for a bail review.

The court held that the trial had not yet commenced for the purposes of s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code, meaning s. 520 governed the application.

However, the court declined to exercise its concurrent jurisdiction under s. 520, ruling that absent special circumstances, superior courts should deal with bail prior to and during a trial.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a four-year sentence imposed for his involvement in a large-scale marijuana operation.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle or misapprehension of evidence by the sentencing judge, noting it was open to infer the appellant was a trusted member of the organization.

The court concluded the sentence was fit and within the acceptable range, dismissing the appeal.

The appellant appealed his sentence for a marijuana grow operation, arguing that conditional sentences are normally given for such offences in the London area.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge was entitled to consider the aggravating factors that the appellant's negligence caused a fire and that his young children and partner were present in the home.

The decision not to impose a conditional sentence was entitled to deference, and the global sentence was not unfit.

The appellants were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

At the preliminary inquiry, the judge discharged the appellants.

On an application for certiorari, the reviewing judge quashed the discharges and committed the appellants for trial, finding the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by weighing evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of jurisdictional error but allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the committal for trial and remitting the matter to the preliminary inquiry judge for further consideration.

The appellant appealed an order sending seized materials to U.S. authorities pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

The appellant argued the search warrant was invalid because the supporting affidavit relied entirely on unsworn hearsay from a U.S. request without independent police investigation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the detailed factual allegations in the formal treaty request provided sufficient reliable evidence for the authorizing judge to issue the warrant.

The court also found the application judge's brief reasons, which adopted the respondent's factum, were adequate and did not deprive the appellant of meaningful appellate review.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking, as well as his sentence imposed in absentia.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in admitting expert evidence from a police officer regarding drug trafficking and the roles of persons in a three-person transaction.

The Court of Appeal held that while the officer was allowed too much latitude, the core of his testimony was admissible and the trial judge was aware of its limitations.

The court also rejected arguments that the verdict was unreasonable and that evidence from one count could not be considered for another.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was fit and the sparse reasons were due to the appellant having absconded.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, who had rejected a joint submission for 90 days intermittent incarceration.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge provided no analysis or basis for concluding that accepting the joint submission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown conceded the proposed sentence was within the proper range.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence varied to time served, as the appellant had already served more than 90 days.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a three-year probation order imposed as part of her sentence.

The Court of Appeal found the probation order and its terms to be entirely fit and dismissed the application for leave to appeal as being without merit.

The appellants were convicted of importing heroin and possession for the purpose of trafficking after 42 kilograms of heroin were found hidden in the washrooms of their flight.

They appealed their convictions and sentences on several grounds, including that a mistrial during jury selection should have annulled the trial judge's pre-trial Charter rulings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that a mistrial during jury selection does not affect pre-trial rulings made under s. 645(5) of the Criminal Code.

The court also upheld the admission of a video re-enactment, the jury's access to the heroin exhibits, and the 18-year sentences given the massive quantity of drugs involved.