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).

The defendant pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offence involved the cultivation of medical marijuana on a property without valid licenses under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation rather than the Crown's requested four-year jail sentence.

The court also dismissed the Crown's application for forfeiture of the real property, finding that such forfeiture would be disproportionate under section 19.1(3) of the CDSA.

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.

The appellant mechanic appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondents $15,000 for the value of their vehicle after a failed engine conversion.

The appellant argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons and erred in calculating damages.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons were brief, the evidentiary record supported the conclusions and permitted appellate review.

The court also held that the methodology for calculating damages was reasonable and correct given the appellant's breach of contract.

The City of Ottawa requested that a stay of the implementation of a previous Assessment Review Board decision, which granted a vacancy rebate to Walkley Self Storage Corporation, be continued pending the City's motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Board declined to continue the stay and ordered it lifted, finding that the City would not suffer substantial prejudice by paying the rebate and that the Municipal Act provides a mechanism for recovery if the rebate is ultimately found to have been paid in error.

The City of Ottawa brought a motion to review a decision of the Assessment Review Board that granted a vacancy rebate to the respondent for vacant units in its self-storage facility.

The City argued the Board erred in law by following a line of cases that found self-storage units eligible for the rebate, rather than another line of cases that found such units were 'inventory' occupied by the operator.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the original decision reasonably interpreted the vacancy rebate provisions of the Municipal Act and O. Reg. 325/01 in the context of the Assessment Act.

The Board confirmed that self-storage units fall under the definition of 'land' subject to taxation, and therefore, vacant units meeting the legislative criteria are eligible for the vacancy rebate.

The appellant, owner of a self-storage facility, applied for a vacancy tax rebate for the 2012 taxation year for self-storage units that were vacant for at least 90 consecutive days.

The City of Ottawa denied the application, arguing that the vacant units were "in use" as inventory for the self-storage business and therefore did not qualify as eligible property under section 364 of the Municipal Act and O. Reg. 325/01.

The Assessment Review Board allowed the appeal, finding that the vacant units were not inventory but rather portions of real property capable of being leased for immediate occupation.

The Board held that the vacant units met all legislative criteria for the vacancy rebate program and ordered the parties to determine the rebate amount.

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.

The applicant applied for a cancellation, reduction, or refund of property taxes for the 2006 and 2007 taxation years under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, citing sickness and inability to pay following a severe fire that destroyed his business premises and caused him serious injury.

While the Assessment Review Board accepted that the applicant suffered from a legitimate sickness that forced the closure of his business for 21 months, it found that he did not demonstrate an inability to pay the taxes.

The Board noted the applicant had significant equity in the subject property and his personal residence, as well as proceeds from the sale of a foreign property.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.