Jacqueline Porter

The offender, a 34-year-old first offender, was found guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after an uncontested trial following an unsuccessful Charter application.

He was found with 356.4 grams of fentanyl and 19.9 grams of cocaine at a RIDE checkpoint.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drugs against mitigating factors including his pro-social background, lack of prior record, and harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendant was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of property obtained from an indictable offence contrary to s. 355(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a trial without jury, the defendant was found not guilty of the charges but guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of a Schedule 1 substance contrary to s. 4(1) of the CDSA.

At sentencing, the Crown sought time served plus 18 months probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence plus 12 months probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months probation, emphasizing rehabilitation as the primary sentencing objective given the defendant's long-standing opioid addiction and lack of prior custodial sentences.

The applicant, Courtney Dennis, applied for state-funded counsel under section 684 of the Criminal Code after being convicted of importing cocaine and resisting arrest.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the application, finding that the grounds of appeal were not arguable, particularly in light of Supreme Court authority on the obligation of an accused who testifies to answer all questions.

The court also found no arguable error in sentencing.

The decision reviews the legal framework for appointing appellate counsel and the standards for determining whether an appeal is arguable.

The court acquitted Richard Ray Smith of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, but convicted him of the lesser included offence of possession of a Schedule 1 substance.

The decision turned on the credibility and reliability of the evidence, the circumstantial nature of the Crown’s case, and the application of the W.(D.) analysis.

The court found that while the amount of fentanyl was consistent with trafficking, it was also consistent with personal use for a heavy user, and the packaging, cash, and other items did not support an inference of trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a six-year penitentiary sentence for possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, arguing errors in determining his role as a mid-level dealer, failing to consider mitigating factors, and insufficient credit for presentence custody and restrictive bail.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's findings on the appellant's role and consideration of mitigating factors.

However, it agreed that credit for two days of presentence custody was omitted.

The appeal was allowed to reduce the sentence by three days, but otherwise dismissed.

The 47-year-old first offender pleaded guilty to break and enter and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The offences were committed while she was suffering from a severe opioid addiction following the death of her partner.

After her arrest, she engaged in extensive rehabilitation and remained drug-free while on bail for over two years.

The court found that her exceptional rehabilitation, early guilty pleas, and lack of prior record justified a conditional sentence of two years less a day, rather than the penitentiary term sought by the Crown.

The appellant, Alycia Sauvé, appealed her convictions and sentence for drug trafficking offences.

While the conviction appeal was abandoned, she sought a stay or reduction of her 18-month custodial sentence based on fresh evidence of significant post-sentencing rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence and, with the Crown's consent to a stay, found it to be an exceptional case.

The court permanently stayed the remainder of the custodial portion of her sentence, while leaving the 18-month probation order and other ancillary orders unchanged, balancing the objectives of deterrence and denunciation with the appellant's remarkable rehabilitative progress.