H. Amarshi

The offender was found guilty of trafficking in crack cocaine and simple possession of crack cocaine.

The court considered the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, her employment history, her role as a caregiver for her mother, and the fact that her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached by police delay in facilitating access to counsel.

Emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging the strong mitigating factors, the court imposed a blended sentence consisting of a 90-day intermittent jail sentence for the trafficking charge and an 18-month conditional sentence for the possession charge.

The applicant, charged with trafficking in crack cocaine, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence seized from her vehicle, alleging violations of her s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 violation, concluding the search was lawful pursuant to a warrant and as a search incident to arrest, despite the searching officer being unaware of the warrant.

The court found that the applicant's s. 10(b) rights were breached due to an inadequate informational caution upon arrest and an unjustified delay in facilitating access to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the reliable, non-conscriptive evidence seized from the vehicle should not be excluded, as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Following a conviction for trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime arising from a street‑level undercover drug buy, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

The court reviewed the entrapment doctrine from R v Mack and subsequent jurisprudence, including the principles governing random virtue testing and bona fide police investigations targeting areas of suspected criminal activity.

Evidence showed the undercover officer conducted an opportunity buy in an area reasonably suspected of significant drug activity and did not induce the accused beyond offering an opportunity to sell drugs.

The court rejected the accused’s claim that the officer exploited sympathy or persisted unfairly.

The accused failed to meet the burden of establishing entrapment as an abuse of process.

Two accused were jointly tried for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession, with one accused also charged with possession of proceeds of crime.

Crack cocaine was discovered during an inventory search of a vehicle following a traffic stop and planned tow for lack of insurance.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including proximity to the drugs, possession of cash and cell phones, and suspicious movements in the vehicle.

The court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either accused had knowledge of the drugs in the vehicle.

Given the limited visibility of the bag, lack of direct evidence, and several reasonable alternative inferences, the circumstantial evidence did not establish knowing possession.

Sentencing following conviction for possession of crack cocaine and breach of probation.

The offender was found with 7.01 grams of crack cocaine and cash but was acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking after the court found a reasonable doubt that the drugs were intended for personal use.

The court considered the offender’s extensive criminal record, longstanding addiction issues, and diagnosis of schizophrenia, as well as the significant quantity of crack cocaine involved.

While denunciation and deterrence were important, the court emphasized rehabilitation and treatment as the most effective means of reducing the risk of reoffending.

A suspended sentence with two years’ probation focused on addiction treatment and community service was imposed, along with a $300 fine for the probation breach.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, simple possession, and breach of probation following his arrest outside a supportive housing building.

Police seized 7.01 grams of crack cocaine and cash, and the Crown relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony that the quantity and surrounding circumstances were consistent with street‑level trafficking.

Defence witnesses suggested the accused was a drug user who had purchased the drugs for personal use after receiving cash from a car sale.

Applying the principles governing circumstantial evidence and the reasonable doubt framework from W.(D.), the court held that although trafficking was highly probable, a reasonable inference consistent with personal use remained.

The accused was acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime but convicted of simple possession and breach of probation.

The accused was charged with drug offences after police found crack cocaine in his pocket during a search incident to arrest.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated.

The court found that the initial pat down search was justified for officer safety reasons, and the subsequent arrest for possession of cocaine was based on reasonable and probable grounds.

Although a s. 10(b) breach occurred, it did not lead to the discovery of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.