Jeanette Gevikoglu

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The respondents, who were charged but had their charges withdrawn, claimed they were innocent of any complicity or collusion in the offences and that forfeiture would be disproportionate.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

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine and oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 8 Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search incident to arrest, contending that the confidential informant's tip lacked sufficient corroboration.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the Debot test and was justified in determining that the arrest was subjectively and objectively reasonable given the informant's proven reliability and the specific information provided.

The appellant appealed her conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting her evidence that she feared police would seize her money as proceeds of crime after returning it the previous day.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inference was reasonably available on the evidence and there was no basis to interfere with the credibility assessment.

The appellant was arrested without a warrant for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police received tips from confidential informants and observed him discarding a digital scale with cocaine residue.

A frisk search yielded cellphones and money but no drugs, prompting a strip search at the police station which uncovered drugs hidden between his buttocks.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the arrest and the decision to strip search were lawful.

However, the Court found that the strip search was conducted in an unreasonable manner, violating section 8 of the Charter, because the door was left open, the search was videotaped without consent, and the appellant was not given the option to remove the drugs himself.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant pled guilty to eight offences related to a large-scale ephedrine exportation business, including money laundering and tax evasion, and was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the sentencing judge erred by imposing a custodial sentence instead of a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle and concluding that the custodial sentence was fit for a sophisticated, large-scale fraud enterprise.

The appellant appealed convictions for production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and theft under.

He argued the circumstantial evidence did not support the inference that he had the required knowledge and control of the grow operation.

The court held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence as a whole, correctly instructed herself on circumstantial evidence, and reasonably concluded that the only reasonable inference was guilt.

The court also rejected the submission that documents seized from the appellant’s home were used improperly.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his application for certiorari to set aside a committal order following a preliminary inquiry.

The appellant argued there was insufficient evidence of identification and the type of plant.

The Court of Appeal held that the preliminary inquiry judge did not commit a jurisdictional error, as there was some evidence connecting the appellant to the property and the 9,000 marijuana plants, including his admitted ownership and the testimony of a police officer.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to traffic in GHB.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of a police agent, in applying a previous binding decision, and in treating the nature of GHB as a date-rape drug as an aggravating factor on sentencing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessment, legal analysis, or sentencing.