Ira Glasner

The offender was found guilty of importing over 500 kilograms of opium, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and related conspiracy charges.

The Crown sought a life sentence due to the massive quantity of drugs and the offender's role, while the defence sought three to eight years.

The court weighed the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence against the offender's lack of prior record, strong community support, and the tragic abduction of his brother related to the drug scheme.

The court imposed a global sentence of 16 years in custody, reduced by 13 months for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant was convicted of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of a loaded restricted or prohibited firearm.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the verdicts were inconsistent with his acquittals on other firearm charges, and appealed his 13-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding it was open to the jury to find constructive possession of the fentanyl and one firearm while having a reasonable doubt about the other.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in principle by failing to apply the principle of restraint for a youthful first-time offender.

The sentence for the drug offence was reduced from 13 years to 10 years.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Rasim Kaba and Hassan Talebi for importing and possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to commit those offences.

The court reviews the evidence, including the defendants' backgrounds, their relationship, the importation process, intercepted communications, and the police investigation.

The court finds both defendants' explanations implausible and concludes that the only reasonable inference is that both knew of the opium and conspired to import and traffic it.

Both are found guilty on all counts.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, and was sentenced to a global term of nine years.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive and seeking a reduction based on fresh evidence of lockdown conditions and triple bunking.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's reasons, noting the aggravating factors such as the nature and quantity of the drugs and the appellant's criminal record.

The court admitted the fresh evidence but declined to reduce the sentence, concluding it remained fit.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, citing a delay of over 20 months.

The Crown argued the delay was justified by the COVID-19 pandemic and the exceptional complexity of the case, which involved a large-scale drug investigation with multiple co-accused, wiretaps, and voluminous disclosure.

The court adopted a conservative approach, attributing three months of delay to the COVID-19 backlog as a discrete exceptional event, bringing the net delay below the presumptive ceiling.

Furthermore, the court found the case was particularly complex, justifying the overall delay.

The application for a stay of proceedings was denied.

The accused pled guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Prior to sentencing, he brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging that police officers stole $45,000 from him during his arrest.

The court found the accused to be a credible witness and rejected the evidence of the arresting officer, concluding on a balance of probabilities that the money was stolen while in police custody.

The court held that the police misconduct, combined with the officer misleading the court, seriously undermined the integrity of the justice system.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the only appropriate remedy.

The accused, John, David, and Jonathan Pham, brought a Charter application under section 11(b) for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was nearly 28 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The Crown argued that the delay was due to an "exceptional circumstance" related to their post-ruling investigation into surveillance evidence.

The court found that the Crown's decision to investigate and introduce new evidence after a section 8 ruling (which found police misrepresentations) was not a reasonably unforeseen or unavoidable event, as the issues were central to the litigation from the outset.

Therefore, the delay was not attributable to an exceptional circumstance, and the presumptive ceiling for delay was exceeded without justification.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the issuance of a tracking warrant, alleging violations of their s.8 rights due to misrepresentations and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The application also included a s.7 claim for a stay of proceedings due to lost evidence (CCTV footage).

The court found that the affiant made significant misrepresentations and omissions regarding a confidential human source's criminal record and surveillance observations, particularly concerning a trip to Whole Foods characterized as "counter-surveillance" driving and an alleged "drug transaction." These misrepresentations were found to be intentional or reckless, tainting the reliability of the ITO.

Consequently, the court excised the misleading portions, rendering the warrant invalid.

The s.7 application for a stay was not granted, as the s.8 remedy was deemed sufficient at this stage.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking cocaine, the accused brought an application to stay the verdict on the basis of entrapment.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's framework for dial-a-dope operations to determine if police had reasonable suspicion before providing the opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found that the undercover officer's initial exchange with the accused crystallized the requisite reasonable suspicion before the officer requested to purchase drugs.

The entrapment application was dismissed.

The accused was discharged on all counts following reconsideration of a committal for trial order.

The original committal was based on evidence that the accused was found alone in an apartment where drugs and a firearm were discovered.

The Court of Appeal quashed the original committal order because the judge had misapprehended key evidence—specifically, a baseball hat that was thought to link the accused to the firearm was not, in fact, the same hat the accused had been seen wearing previously.

On reconsideration, the judge found that without this evidence, the Crown's case rested on impermissible speculation and inferential leaps.

The evidence was insufficient to establish the accused's knowledge and control of the contraband, as multiple other individuals had access to the apartment and forensic evidence linked others to the drugs.

The appellants were convicted by a jury of importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine, based largely on the testimony and eyewitness identification of a co-conspirator who had already been convicted.

On appeal, the appellants argued the verdicts were unreasonable and challenged the trial judge's jury instructions.

The Court of Appeal found the verdicts were not unreasonable but allowed the appeals and ordered new trials due to errors in the jury charge.

Specifically, the trial judge provided an inadequate Vetrovec caution that distracted the jury from the witness's motive to cooperate with police, and gave boilerplate instructions on eyewitness identification that failed to highlight the specific frailties of the witness's evidence.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking fentanyl and heroin to an undercover officer, as well as possession of proceeds of crime.

The court recognized the offender as an addict trafficker who sold drugs to support his own addiction, but noted the significant quantities involved and the extreme danger fentanyl poses to the community.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years' imprisonment, reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of 4 years and 359 days.

The accused challenged the validity of search warrants issued for his apartment and vehicle on Charter grounds, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds to justify the warrants.

The Crown conceded that the redacted ITO was insufficient and sought to rely on unredacted portions protected by informer privilege.

The court applied the Debot criteria to assess whether information from a confidential informant, combined with police investigation and the accused's criminal record, established reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused unlawfully possessed a firearm.

The court found the information sufficiently compelling, credible, and corroborated to justify the warrant issuance.

The accused's section 8 Charter rights were not infringed.

Talel Khan was charged with possession of fentanyl for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The trial involved applications regarding the voluntariness of Khan's statement to police and alleged breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel).

The court found Khan's statement voluntary but his s. 10(b) rights were violated due to delayed access to counsel and police eliciting a statement after he requested a lawyer.

The elicited statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, but physical evidence (fentanyl, scale, money) was admitted.

Ultimately, the court found the Crown failed to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as a reasonable alternative inference was that Khan's common-law spouse was in sole possession.

Khan was found not guilty on both counts.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a sentence of 26 months imprisonment, less four months credit for pre-trial custody, plus two years' probation for possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking.

The appellant argued the sentence was excessive given the small quantity of drugs, his addiction status, and rehabilitation efforts.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's addiction and rehabilitation attempts, but reasonably concluded that exceptional circumstances did not exist.

The court noted the appellant had failed to complete a residential treatment program, continued using opiates, committed further offences while on bail, and failed to appear for sentencing.

The offender, barely 18 years old at the time of the offence, was convicted of trafficking in approximately one ounce of heroin and one ounce of cocaine.

She was a courier with a minimal role in the criminal enterprise, likely exploited by others.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of concurrent probation, finding that exceptional circumstances justified departure from the custodial range ordinarily applicable to hard drug trafficking.

The court emphasized the offender's youth, first-offender status, demonstrated rehabilitation over nearly two years of bail compliance, exemplary employment record, educational progress, and strong rehabilitative potential.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking crack cocaine involving the sale of 1.44 grams to an undercover officer for $120.

The Crown sought 90 days' intermittent imprisonment plus two years' probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years' probation, finding that significant mitigating circumstances, including the accused's status as a first-time offender, genuine remorse, positive rehabilitation efforts, and history of severe trauma, warranted a non-custodial approach.

The court found that collateral consequences of conviction and probation conditions adequately addressed principles of deterrence and denunciation.

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

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on police surveillance evidence showing the defendant driving a Honda in which drugs and cash were found on the rear seat.

The court applied the legal principles governing constructive possession and circumstantial evidence, finding that the Crown established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge and control of the heroin and cocaine.

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the proceeds charge, finding insufficient evidence that the $350 cash had a criminal source.