Jamie Pereira

The defendant, Jean Auclair, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and possession of proceeds obtained by crime.

The charges arose after nurses found drugs and cash in his shorts while he was in the ICU for a suspected overdose.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging unreasonable search and seizure by nurses (as state actors/agents) and police.

The court found that nurses were not state actors or police agents, and their search was reasonable for medical purposes.

The police seizure was found to engage s. 8 but was justified under s. 489(2) of the Criminal Code.

Even if there were Charter breaches, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court found Auclair guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, but not guilty of the included offence of simple possession due to the Good Samaritan Drug Overdose Act (CDSA s. 4.1(2)).

This is a sentencing decision following a trial where Derrick Adams was found guilty of manslaughter and trafficking fentanyl.

The court considered the appropriate sentence, balancing aggravating factors such as Adams' extensive criminal record, lack of full remorse, and the victim's young age, against limited mitigating factors including some remorse and a streamlined trial.

The judgment discusses the evolving sentencing ranges for fentanyl trafficking and related deaths, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court also applied a "Duncan credit" to reduce the sentence due to harsh pre-trial detention conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global sentence of 8 years for manslaughter (concurrent 6 years for trafficking) was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody.

This criminal trial concerned charges of trafficking fentanyl, manslaughter, and criminal negligence causing death against the accused.

The charges arose from the overdose death of Rachel Cook.

The court analyzed circumstantial evidence, including text messages and expert testimony, to determine if the accused trafficked fentanyl to the deceased and if this act caused her death.

The court found that the only reasonable inference was that the accused trafficked fentanyl to the deceased, which caused her death.

The court also found that the accused's conduct met the mens rea requirements for manslaughter (objective foreseeability of non-trivial bodily harm) and criminal negligence causing death (marked and substantial departure from a reasonable person's conduct).

Johan Thiessen was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, noting the serious nature and high value of the drugs involved.

Despite the accused's lack of criminal record and strong community support, his role as a facilitator by allowing his home to be used as a "stash house" demonstrated reckless disregard.

Balancing these factors against the 6-year sentences received by the main orchestrators of the trafficking scheme, the court imposed a sentence of 4.5 years incarceration, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Anna Thiessen, charged with possession of cocaine and methamphetamine for trafficking, brought an application for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The court considered whether there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that she had constructive or attributed possession of the drugs found in a crawl space at her jointly owned property.

Applying the test for a directed verdict, the court found no reasonable inference could be drawn that she had knowledge, consented to, or controlled the drugs.

The application was granted, and Anna Thiessen was acquitted of both counts.

Appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment awarding a real estate brokerage commission after the seller refused to accept a full‑price offer during the listing period.

The appellant argued the offer was not properly presented, did not comply with certain listing conditions, and that the brokerage breached fiduciary duties through multiple representation.

The court held the offer had been adequately presented within the listing period and that the alleged deficiencies were either immaterial or consistent with the listing terms.

The court further found no breach of fiduciary duty.

The appeal was dismissed and the commission award upheld.

The court determined the appropriate costs award following a successful application to remove a caution registered against title to property.

The applicant sought substantial indemnity costs, alleging the respondent misled the Land Registrar about the existence of an agreement of purchase and sale and failed to serve notice of the caution.

The court held that pre‑litigation requests for relief and the strength of the applicant’s case alone do not justify elevated costs.

However, the respondent’s misrepresentation to the Registrar and failure to provide required notice justified substantial indemnity costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant’s claimed costs of $12,536.89 were found reasonable and were awarded in full.