Gregory Lafontaine

The offender was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking offences, including possession of 21 kilograms of cocaine and two kilograms of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court rejected the offender's argument that he believed the fentanyl was cocaine, finding he was operating a high-level commercial enterprise.

Weighing the severe aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drugs against mitigating factors including restrictive bail conditions and pandemic-related pre-trial custody, the court imposed a global sentence of 16 years, reduced to 14 years and 9.5 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, Alex Yizhak, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay after being found guilty of firearms charges, claiming the Jordan ceiling was exceeded by 17 days.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the application for two primary reasons.

First, the application was untimely, as the defence failed to raise concerns or act proactively regarding delay despite knowing the trial's temporal bounds months in advance, which deprived the Crown and Court of opportunities to remedy the delay.

Second, the court found that significant periods of delay were solely attributable to defence conduct, including inefficiency in reviewing disclosure and counsel's unavailability, which far exceeded the 17-day alleged breach.

The judge's medical leave, which caused "verdict deliberation delay" was deemed an exceptional circumstance and not a factor to "bump up" the delay beyond the Jordan ceiling.

The accused, having been convicted of drug trafficking offences, applied to reopen his trial prior to sentencing to adduce fresh evidence.

The fresh evidence related to findings in a separate proceeding that a police officer had deliberately misled another officer to obtain search warrants.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at trial with due diligence.

The court concluded that the application was an attempt to reverse a tactical decision made by defence counsel at trial, who had chosen to challenge a different warrant rather than pursue the missing video evidence.

The applicant, Alex Yizhak, sought to make inquiries of the presiding judge regarding her health-related leave, which had impacted the deliberative period of his criminal trial.

These inquiries were intended to support a s. 11(b) application for unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the information already provided was sufficient, the questions amounted to an improper cross-examination of the judge, probed into private health information, and resembled a public inquiry beyond the scope of a criminal trial.

The applicant, Alex Yizhak, sought a mistrial alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The judge, after delivering a guilty verdict, disclosed the reason for a five-month delay in judgment (a health-related leave) when the accused indicated a potential s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The applicant argued this unsolicited disclosure, which could favour the Crown in a Jordan analysis, constituted bias by shaping the evidentiary record.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the presumption of judicial impartiality and the judge's proactive role in managing proceedings and providing relevant information.

The accused, Khanij Chopra, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance"over 80" and possession of a controlled substance.

The defense filed a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude breath samples and the controlled substance.

The Crown sought to admit the accused's utterances.

The court found significant Charter breaches due to prolonged unlawful detention and denial of the right to counsel, leading to the exclusion of the breath samples and the controlled substance under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty of the "over 80" and possession charges.

For the impaired operation charge, the court found reasonable doubt regarding impairment at the time police located the accused, leading to an acquittal on that count as well.

The appellant appealed his conviction for multiple violent offences and his designation as a dangerous offender, which resulted in an indeterminate sentence.

The primary focus of the appeal was the dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code, which allows for designation based on the brutal nature of a single offence compelling a conclusion of future unrestrained behaviour.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's decision, finding no error in the assessment and weighing of conflicting expert psychiatric evidence regarding the appellant's future risk of violent reoffence.

The court affirmed that the sentencing judge was entitled to prefer the Crown's expert's opinion, which considered clinical factors in addition to actuarial tests, and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant constituted a threat to public safety requiring an indeterminate sentence.

The conviction appeal was also dismissed.

The accused, Christopher Janisse, faced an eight-count indictment for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The trial proceeded on a written statement of facts.

Janisse conceded guilt on two counts of possession of cocaine for trafficking and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found him not guilty of two counts of trafficking cocaine, determining that the circumstantial evidence, while suspicious, did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found Janisse guilty of a third trafficking count and two counts of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for trafficking, concluding that the totality of circumstantial evidence established his knowledge and control of a drug stash house and the large quantities of drugs found.

The final judgment was guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, and not guilty on counts 4 and 5.

The defendant, Thanh Hai Lu, was convicted of multiple commercial-level drug trafficking offences involving cocaine, fentanyl, fentanyl/heroin, MDMA, and ketamine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature and large quantities of drugs, the commercial scope of the operation, and the defendant's subjective knowledge of trafficking fentanyl.

Mitigating factors included his lack of criminal record, strong family support, rehabilitative potential, and expressed remorse.

The court also considered the principle of parity with a co-accused and credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

A global sentence of 9.5 years' incarceration was imposed, reduced by pre-trial credit.

The accused was arrested for murder and a search incident to arrest revealed controlled substances.

The murder charges were later withdrawn, but the drug charges proceeded.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude the drug evidence, arguing his s. 8 rights were violated by an unlawful arrest and his s. 10(b) rights were violated by a delay in facilitating access to counsel.

The court found the arrest was lawful, but the police seriously breached the accused's right to counsel by inexplicably delaying his access to a lawyer for almost three hours.

Given the seriousness of the breach and misleading testimony by a police officer, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 8 to exclude wiretap evidence and items seized during a search of a residence, arguing that a Part VI authorization was facially invalid.

The authorization was obtained during an investigation into a corrupt police officer who was allegedly fixing traffic tickets and associating with individuals involved in illicit marijuana production.

The court found that the authorization was valid, as there were reasonable grounds to believe that intercepting the accused's communications would assist the investigation.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the court noted in obiter that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with multiple counts of drug trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking following an undercover police investigation.

The accused delivered cocaine and fentanyl to an undercover officer on four occasions after deals were brokered by a co-conspirator.

The court admitted the co-conspirator's text messages under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the accused guilty on all trafficking counts, concluding he had knowledge of the illicit nature of the substances.

The court also found the accused guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking regarding drugs found in an apartment, finding constructive possession proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, charged with multiple drug trafficking offences, brought an application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that a tracking warrant was improperly issued.

The tracking warrant was based on information from a confidential informant.

Applying the Debot framework, the court found the informant's information was compelling, highly credible, and materially corroborated by police surveillance of counter-surveillance techniques.

The court concluded there were reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was trafficking drugs and that the tracking warrant was validly issued.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, charged with drug offences following a search incident to an arrest for an unrelated murder, brought a motion to compel disclosure of redacted documents from the ongoing murder investigation.

The defence sought the unredacted documents to challenge the lawfulness of the murder arrest under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Crown asserted investigative privilege over the redacted portions.

The court applied the Richards test and the Barnes four-prong approach, concluding that while the information was relevant, it was unlikely to affect the outcome of the Charter hearing or prevent the accused from making full answer and defence.

The court held that the public interest in protecting the ongoing murder investigation outweighed the accused's marginal interest in disclosure, and dismissed the motion.

The applicant, Kevin Tran, convicted of drug trafficking and firearms offences, sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed, arguing detention was necessary in the public interest under s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's lack of criminal history, adherence to previous bail conditions, and strict proposed release terms, along with the co-accused's prior release on similar terms, led the court to conclude that detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was granted.

The appellants were convicted of drug trafficking offences following the execution of search warrants at two condominiums and a vehicle.

They appealed their convictions and sentences, arguing that the searches violated their s. 8 Charter rights and that a delay in facilitating access to counsel violated s. 10(b).

The Court of Appeal found that the searches were lawful, with the warrantless entry justified by exigent circumstances.

Although the court found a s. 10(b) breach due to a four-hour delay in providing access to counsel, it declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2), noting the breach was an isolated incident rather than systemic.

The appeals against conviction and sentence were dismissed.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence and vehicle on the grounds of a breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (unreasonable search and seizure).

The applicant raised three arguments: (1) the ITO failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe trafficking had occurred; (2) the ITO failed to establish reasonable grounds that evidence would be found at the residence; and (3) the warrant was facially invalid for authorizing searches of two separate independent places on a single warrant.

The court rejected all three arguments and found the warrant valid, admitting the evidence obtained from the search.

Omnibus Garofoli application challenging the naming of multiple accused persons in two authorizations to intercept private communications issued in Project Kraken, an investigation into criminal activity by the Deep Waters and Chester Le gangs in Toronto.

The applicants challenged their inclusion as named targets in the first authorization (March 25, 2019) and second authorization (May 21, 2019), as well as the inclusion of Maral Ashoury's telephone number in an earlier Transmission Data Recorder warrant (February 11, 2019).

The court applied the deferential Garofoli standard of review and upheld the authorizations, finding sufficient reliable evidence that the interception of the applicants' communications could assist in the investigation of criminal organization offences.

The respondent, Barry Lee Charpentier, was charged with fraud over $5,000.

The Crown alleged a scheme where Charpentier, as Vice-President of Construction for E & E Seegmiller Limited, colluded with a sub-contractor (Chym Engineering Limited) to inflate invoices, with half of the excess funds being paid to a company owned by Charpentier's former spouse.

Charpentier denied fraud, claiming the payments were compensation agreed upon with Tim Seegmiller due to unfulfilled employment contract terms and his involvement in Seegmiller's alleged bid-rigging and other unethical activities.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the identity of the victim (E & E Seegmiller Limited as a legal entity), deprivation, and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, largely due to the absence of crucial corporate documents and the testimony of Tim Seegmiller.

Consequently, Charpentier was found not guilty.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug-related offences and his sentence.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in finding the Information to Obtain (ITO) for search warrants was sufficient and whether evidence obtained from a warrantless swab of his car door handle should have been excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that the warrantless swabbing of the car door handles, followed by chemical analysis, constituted an unreasonable search under section 8 of the Charter, requiring prior judicial authorization.

However, the Court upheld the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence under section 24(2), deferring to the trial judge's assessment of the Grant factors, particularly the police's good faith and full disclosure.

The Court also dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding the six-year consecutive sentence (resulting in a total of 16 years) was not demonstrably unfit given the serious nature of the drug trafficking enterprise and the appellant's conduct while on bail.