G. Raven

Maisum Ansari was charged with breaching a release order's curfew condition, obstructing a peace officer, and impersonation.

He pleaded guilty to obstruction and impersonation but not guilty to the breach.

The court found that the defendant violated his curfew by engaging in activities unrelated to work or direct travel to/from work, such as socializing at a parking lot, discussing an electric vehicle charger, and consuming alcohol at a friend's residence.

The court determined that the Crown proved both the actus reus and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, and the defendant's asserted "lawful excuse" (lack of control, cost of alternative transport) was objectively unreasonable and disproven.

The defendant was found guilty of breaching his release order.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, brought an application to exclude evidence (text messages) seized from a third party's phone without a warrant, arguing the search was unlawful and exceeded permissible scope.

The applicant also challenged the lawfulness of their arrest, alleging excessive force, and the subsequent strip search.

The court dismissed the application, finding the phone search was properly incident to a lawful arrest and tailored to its purpose.

It further held that the force used during the arrest was reasonable given the circumstances, and the strip search was justified by reasonable and probable grounds, thus no Charter breaches occurred.

The accused, Matthew Cecchetto, Dylan Paquette, and Carly Almon, were charged with various drug possession and trafficking offences.

The Crown stayed charges against Cecchetto and Almon.

The trial proceeded against Paquette, focusing on whether he possessed illicit substances found in a locked safe in a motel room.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Paquette knew of the substances in the safe and had control over them, as the circumstantial evidence did not lead to the sole reasonable inference of his guilt.

Consequently, all charges against Dylan Paquette were dismissed.

The court also indicated it would have dismissed charges against Cecchetto and Almon had they not been stayed.

The applicants were charged with possession of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of oxycontin.

Two of the applicants brought a motion for leave to cross-examine the sub-affiants of a search warrant as part of a Garofoli application challenging the validity of the search warrant for a motel room.

The applicants alleged that the police officers falsely stated in their arrest reports that they had been invited into the room.

The trial judge found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, evasive, and incredible, and dismissed the motion for leave to cross-examine the sub-affiants.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine (2 counts), possession of marijuana, failure to comply with recognizance – curfew condition, and failure to comply with recognizance – possession of drugs.

The accused was self-represented at trial after multiple counsel withdrew or were removed.

The Crown's case relied on surveillance evidence, the discovery of a kilogram brick of cocaine in the vehicle and four baggies of cocaine on the accused's person, and expert evidence regarding drug trafficking.

The court addressed multiple Charter issues including searches incident to arrest, right to counsel, and change in jeopardy.

The court found all searches lawful, no Charter breaches, and convicted the accused on all counts based on circumstantial evidence establishing knowledge and control of the cocaine.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine (2 counts), possession of marijuana, and failure to comply with recognizance conditions.

The defence brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a tracking warrant issued under section 492.1 of the Criminal Code, alleging that the information to obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to suspect and breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The Crown argued that the anonymous source's information was corroborated and confirmed through police investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the totality of the facts disclosed in the ITO provided reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was involved in drug trafficking and that the tracking warrant was properly authorized.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and importing cocaine into Canada.

A parcel containing cocaine was shipped from Trinidad to an address in Oshawa.

An undercover police officer, posing as a Canada Post employee, delivered the parcel.

The defendant intercepted the delivery, demonstrated knowledge of the sender and intended recipient, accepted the parcel, and brought it inside a residence.

Within 23 minutes, police executed a search warrant and found the parcel opened on a kitchen table.

The defendant fled upon police entry.

The court found the defendant guilty of both counts based on direct and circumstantial evidence establishing possession and knowledge of the illegal drugs.

The accused was charged with three counts of trafficking in heroin and three counts of trafficking in fentanyl arising from three separate drug transactions in August 2016.

The accused admitted to facilitating the sale of heroin but disputed knowingly or intentionally trafficking in fentanyl.

The court found that while the Crown need not prove knowledge of the exact narcotic to secure a conviction for trafficking, the Crown must prove the mental element required for each specific offence.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court held that convicting on both heroin and fentanyl trafficking counts for the same single act constituted an abuse of process.

The court stayed the fentanyl counts and convicted on the heroin counts, while noting the presence of fentanyl as an aggravating factor for sentencing.

The defendant, a 25-year-old Aboriginal woman with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to theft of prescription medication and three counts of trafficking in controlled substances (Hydromorph Contin, Oxycocet, and Adderall).

The offences occurred while she was employed as a pharmacy technician and involved taking narcotics from the pharmacy safe for personal use and to share with her then-boyfriend.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 2.5 to 3 years, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 30 months probation, finding exceptional circumstances based on the defendant's genuine rehabilitation efforts, completion of drug and mental health treatment programs, stable employment, family support, and Aboriginal heritage considerations.

The defendant pleaded guilty to production of a Schedule II substance contrary to section 7(2)(b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the CDSA.

Following a trial of an issue (Gardiner hearing), the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant produced and possessed marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The defendant was an authorized medical marijuana producer who significantly exceeded his authorized production limits.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence that he was engaged in a two-stage operation for personal consumption, finding instead that the scale of the operation, the packaging of marijuana in one-pound quantities with brand names, and the defendant's lack of credibility supported an inference of trafficking.

The court sentenced the defendant to five months concurrent imprisonment on both counts, imposed a 109 order for ten years, ordered a DNA sample, and placed the defendant on probation for two years with conditions prohibiting marijuana production.

The defendant was convicted of being a party to three counts of trafficking in cocaine.

She served as a surety for a man charged with robbery who was under house arrest.

While the principal offender sold cocaine to an undercover police officer on three occasions in the defendant's motor vehicle, the defendant claimed she believed the meetings were about the principal offender's party promotion business.

The court rejected this evidence and found her guilty.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with the first six months under house arrest, the second six months under curfew, and the final six months on statutory terms, finding this exceptional case warranted a conditional sentence despite the serious nature of the offence and the defendant's breach of her duty as surety.

The defendant, a university student and single mother, was charged with aiding and abetting trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown alleged that the defendant knowingly allowed her vehicle to be used for three cocaine transactions between her intimate partner and an undercover police officer, and that cocaine was found in her home.

The defendant testified she believed the meetings were related to her partner's party promotion business and that she had no knowledge of the drug transactions.

The court found the defendant guilty of three counts of aiding and abetting trafficking in cocaine but acquitted her of possession for the purpose of trafficking, finding that the cocaine found in her home belonged to her partner and that she had no knowledge he would leave it there.

The Crown sought a stay of proceedings under section 579(1) on the original charges against the defendant.

The Crown's position was that despite a guilty plea entered in October 2012, a Pre-Sentence report with Gladue factors had not been properly prepared by Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto as ordered by the court.

Rather than compel attendance of the report authors, the Crown elected to direct a stay of proceedings given the defendant's particular circumstances and the delay involved.

The court granted the Crown stay, which did not apply to new charges pending in another courtroom.