Jeanette Gevikoglu

The appellant challenged Charter rulings after police found fentanyl during a search incident to detention.

The court upheld the trial judge’s findings on search scope and right-to-counsel compliance and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Damodar Arapakota on a charge of bribing a foreign public official contrary to section 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA).

The respondent had paid for a family vacation in Orlando, Florida for a Botswana government official in exchange for letters confirming the government's intention to award a contract to the respondent's company.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding that the Crown had failed to prove that the respondent received a material business advantage in return for the trip and that there was insufficient nexus between the trip and the letters.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding that while the trial judge erred in requiring proof of a specific act or omission, this error did not affect the outcome because the trial judge correctly found that the respondent received no meaningful business advantage.

Justice Monahan dissented, arguing that the trial judge's interpretation of "as consideration for" was unduly narrow and that the acquittal should be set aside for a new trial.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Adam Chiarelli’s appeal from his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a limiting instruction regarding inadmissible opinion evidence given by police officers about items found in the vehicle being “consistent with drug trafficking.” The court dismissed other grounds of appeal, including the lack of a Vetrovec caution and the reasonableness of the verdict, but concluded the error was not minor and the curative proviso did not apply.

A new trial was ordered.

This decision addresses a constitutional challenge to section 9(5)(a)(i) of the Cannabis Act, which prohibits discharges for indictable offences of possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution.

The court upholds the constitutionality of the provision, finding that the infringement on liberty is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad, does not impose a grossly disproportionate sentence, and does not create a distinction based on race in its impact.

The court sentences the accused, Rene Smith, to a fine of $7,500 and makes several ancillary orders.

After trial, Dominic D’Angelo Wright was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences involving possession of a loaded handgun, large sums of cash, and various controlled substances.

A joint submission for a global sentence of six years was accepted by the court.

The sentencing considered an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment Report (IRCA) which detailed Mr. Wright’s challenging upbringing in a high-crime, low-income neighbourhood, his struggles with loss, substance abuse, and systemic discrimination.

Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offences, particularly the impact of opioid trafficking and gun possession on community safety.

Enhanced presentence custody credit was granted due to harsh incarceration conditions.

The sentence balances denunciation and deterrence with recognition of Mr. Wright’s rehabilitative potential, including his educational achievements while in custody.

The defendant, Ikenna Nwene, was charged with importing 461 grams of heroin.

The package was intercepted by authorities, duties were paid, and it cleared customs before a controlled delivery was attempted.

Nwene attended to pick up the package with a fake driver's license in the consignee's name but refused to take it when he suspected the officer was undercover.

The court found that the physical element of importing was completed when the package cleared customs.

Based on circumstantial evidence, including the fake ID, his actions at the DHL store, and his attempt to discard evidence, the court concluded that Nwene was involved in the scheme and knew the package contained a controlled substance.

He was found guilty of importing.

Brian Luckman was convicted by a jury of trafficking in methamphetamine.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 2 years less one day.

The court found Luckman to be a principal offender in a high-level commercial drug trafficking operation involving 4 kilograms of methamphetamine intended for export to Australia.

Considering aggravating factors like the gravity of the offence and mitigating factors such as his lack of a criminal record and prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment, rejecting the conditional sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police found 200 grams of cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia in a safe in his bedroom.

The offender was a 24-year-old first-time offender who had complied with bail conditions and made significant rehabilitative efforts, including completing his electrician apprenticeship.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, finding that exceptional mitigating circumstances warranted a sentence outside the usual range, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The appellant, convicted of importing cocaine, sought leave to appeal her sentence of six years and three months.

She argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider collateral consequences related to her children's care by the Catholic Children's Aid Society and the impact of systemic discrimination and racism.

The Court of Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately considered family circumstances as a mitigating factor and that systemic factors, while relevant to responsibility, do not diminish the gravity of the offence.

The sentence was at the low end of the established range for such offences.

The Crown appealed from a Court of Appeal decision striking down Criminal Code provisions (ss. 742.1(c) and 742.1(e)(ii)) that made conditional sentences unavailable for certain serious offences, as applied to an Indigenous offender convicted of importing cocaine.

The majority (5-4) allowed the appeal, restoring the 18-month custodial sentence, holding that the respondent failed to satisfy step one of the s. 15(1) Charter analysis by not demonstrating that the impugned provisions created or contributed to a disproportionate impact on Indigenous offenders relative to non-Indigenous offenders.

The majority also held the provisions were not overbroad under s. 7 because maximum sentences are a reasonable proxy for offence seriousness.

The dissent would have dismissed the appeal, finding the provisions both overbroad under s. 7 and discriminatory against Indigenous offenders under s. 15(1) by impairing the remedial Gladue framework.

The applicant, Kevin Tran, convicted of drug trafficking and firearms offences, sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed, arguing detention was necessary in the public interest under s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's lack of criminal history, adherence to previous bail conditions, and strict proposed release terms, along with the co-accused's prior release on similar terms, led the court to conclude that detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was granted.

The appellant was convicted of drug-related offences and appealed on the grounds that the police obtained the drugs through an unconstitutional arrest and search, and that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter was violated.

The trial judge found the arrest lawful based on the appellant's possession of marijuana in an open knapsack and a baggie.

The search was incidental to the lawful arrest and conducted reasonably.

Regarding the alleged s. 10(b) breach, the trial judge found insufficient evidence of prejudice and declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no error in the trial judge's findings and concluding that the appellant failed to meet his onus to demonstrate exclusion of evidence was warranted.

The appellant appealed his sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The parties agreed that the trial judge was inadvertently misled regarding the immigration consequences of the sentence.

A sentence of exactly 6 months would preclude an appeal of a removal order, whereas a sentence under 6 months would permit such an appeal.

On consent, the Court of Appeal varied the effective sentence from 6 months to 5 months 29 days concurrent on all counts, with the probation order remaining unchanged.

The variation included credit for 98 days of pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and breach of probation.

The central issue was whether police lawfully detained the appellant and his luggage for approximately one hour and forty-five minutes pending the arrival of a drug-sniffer dog, based on a confidential informant's tip.

The trial judge found the detention reasonable; the Court of Appeal found it violated the appellant's Charter rights under section 9 but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2).

The conviction was upheld.

The appellant also appealed his 12-month sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in treating him as a repeat offender and failing to apply sentencing principles for first-time offenders.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge made an error but upheld the sentence.

An applicant convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking sought bail pending his sentence appeal under s. 679(4) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant had been sentenced to two years in custody, less five months' pre-sentence credit.

The Crown opposed bail, arguing the appeal lacked sufficient merit.

The applicant's primary ground of appeal concerned collateral immigration consequences, as a sentence of six months or greater would render him inadmissible to Canada and subject to deportation without a right of appeal.

The court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the bail application, finding the appeal lacked sufficient merit and that continued detention would not cause unnecessary hardship.

The appellant was convicted of agreeing to offer a bribe to foreign public officials contrary to section 3(1)(b) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act.

As an agent of Cryptometrics Canada, the appellant agreed with other employees to bribe Indian officials to secure a multi-million dollar Air India contract.

The appeal raised three main grounds: lack of territorial jurisdiction, misinterpretation of the word "agree" in the statute, and misapplication of the co-conspirators' exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for offences related to a marijuana grow operation discovered in the basement of a residential property at 50 Ravenscrest Drive in Toronto.

Arin Hwang was charged with producing marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of dried marijuana found in a suitcase, and theft of electricity.

Van Da Do was charged with producing marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity.

The court acquitted Do of all charges due to unreliable eyewitness identification evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence linking him to the premises.

Hwang was convicted of simple possession of the dried marijuana found in the suitcase but acquitted of the remaining charges, as the Crown failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he exercised the requisite control over the basement grow operation.

The Attorney General of Canada sought forfeiture of a residential property at 15 Tamora Court in Toronto pursuant to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the conviction of the respondents' adult son for drug trafficking offences.

The respondents, who were charged but had their charges withdrawn, claimed they were innocent of any complicity or collusion in the offences and that forfeiture would be disproportionate.

The court found the respondents appeared innocent under section 19(3) of the CDSA and ordered the property returned to them.

Alternatively, the court found forfeiture would be disproportionate under section 19.1(3) and revoked the restraint order.

Following the defendant's guilty plea to production of marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown brought a forfeiture application under section 16 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for the residential property where the grow operation was discovered.

The registered owner, the defendant's mother, sought restoration of the property under section 19(3) of the CDSA, arguing she was innocent of any complicity or collusion.

The court found the evidence of her knowledge and involvement was exceedingly weak and granted her application for restoration, finding she appeared innocent of complicity or collusion in the offence.