Jesse Razaqpur

Patrick Gordon pleaded guilty to possession of psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment (CSO), while Gordon sought a conditional discharge.

The court reviewed sentencing principles, including proportionality, individualization, and parity, and analyzed comparator cases involving psilocybin dispensaries.

The court found that a conditional discharge was in Gordon's best interests and not contrary to the public interest, considering his lack of criminal record, remorse, and the circumstances of the offence.

Chris Vagenos pleaded guilty to five offences, including possession of psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of an undertaking.

The offences stemmed from his employment at a store selling magic mushrooms, and he breached his undertaking by returning to work there shortly after his initial arrest.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with a 30-month probation order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, emphasizing rehabilitation and finding the discharge not contrary to the public interest despite the breach of undertaking.

Matthew Ferguson pleaded guilty to possession of psilocybin for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a 15-month custodial sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of psilocybin, the retail storefront operation, and the offender's managerial role and financial motivation.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, pro-social life, community involvement, and family support.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first six months, 100 hours of community service, a DNA order, and a 10-year/life weapons prohibition.

Aladin Abdelgadir pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl and MDA for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the significant quantity of fentanyl (over 2 kg), the accused's awareness of the opioid crisis and the dangers of fentanyl, his motivation by profit, and his related criminal record, including being on parole at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, intelligence, and social context evidence related to systemic racism and a troubled upbringing.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence due to the grave harm caused by fentanyl trafficking.

A global sentence of 13 years was imposed.

Michael Dalia was convicted of drug offences, including possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 16-year sentence for fentanyl-related counts, while the defence requested a global sentence of 10 years, arguing Dalia was a mid-level trafficker with significant mitigating factors, including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's criminal record, and the impact of fentanyl trafficking, applying principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The court also applied a "Duncan credit" for the unduly harsh conditions of Dalia's pre-sentence custody.

Ultimately, a 13-year sentence for the fentanyl count was imposed, reduced to 10 years after the Duncan credit, with concurrent sentences for other counts.

The applicant, Patrick Benson, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on secondary grounds following a bail hearing.

He argued for a de novo hearing based on an alleged error by the Justice of the Peace and a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and an outbreak at the detention centre, coupled with his health issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances, warranting a de novo hearing.

However, after reviewing the proposed release plan, the applicant's extensive criminal record (including violent offences, breaches of court orders, and failures to appear), and the Crown's evidence regarding institutional COVID-19 protocols, the court dismissed the bail review application.

Detention was ordered on both primary (flight risk) and secondary (public safety) grounds, finding the proposed plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk posed by the applicant.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on charges including possession of methamphetamine for trafficking and probation breaches.

The court considered a new surety and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as material changes in circumstances, allowing for a de novo review.

Despite the applicant's extensive criminal record and the seriousness of the charges, the court granted judicial interim release.

It found that the proposed release plan, combined with the heightened health risks of incarceration during the pandemic, sufficiently addressed the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention, particularly for a non-violent offender.

The accused was found guilty of seven counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in various controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, GHB, hydromorphone, and cannabis), two counts of possession of proceeds of crime, one count of careless storage of a firearm, and one count of possession of a loaded prohibited weapon.

The accused operated a drug trafficking enterprise in concert with a co-accused from a hair salon and later from a residential address.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, with consideration given to Gladue factors relating to the accused's Métis heritage, childhood trauma, and rehabilitation efforts, while maintaining that denunciation and deterrence remained paramount given the serious nature of the offences involving fentanyl and heroin trafficking combined with firearms possession.

The accused was convicted of seven counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in various controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, GHB, hydromorphone, and cannabis), one count of possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000, one count of careless storage of a firearm, one count of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and four counts of breach of firearms prohibition orders.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, including a 1-year consecutive term for the prohibition breaches, with time served credited on a 1.5:1 basis.

The sentencing emphasized the serious dangers of fentanyl and heroin trafficking, the toxic combination of drugs and firearms, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

Police arrested the accused based on information from a confidential informant and conducted a warrantless search of his vehicle, seizing 27.96 grams of fentanyl.

The accused challenged the validity of the arrest and the search, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, that the arrest was arbitrary, and that the resulting search was unlawful.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the state misconduct and the impact on the accused's Charter-protected rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant, Jesse Bonello, charged with robbery and related offences, sought disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to the principal Crown witnesses, Tyrone Saunders and Lauren Smith, under *Stinchcombe* and, alternatively, via an *O'Connor* application.

The Crown argued the records were not in its possession and thus not subject to *Stinchcombe* disclosure.

The court found that the occurrence reports were not "fruits of the investigation" and therefore not subject to *Stinchcombe* disclosure.

Applying the *O'Connor* principles, the court determined that the applicant met the "likely relevance" threshold for Tyrone Saunders' records due to his extensive criminal record and expected credibility issues, ordering a review of those sealed documents.

However, the application for Lauren Smith's records was dismissed as a "fishing expedition" due to the absence of a criminal record or case-specific evidence demonstrating likely relevance.

The Crown brought an application for a ruling on the admissibility of post-offence conduct evidence against three accused in a first-degree murder trial.

The court deferred the decision on the admissibility of vehicle cleaning evidence, finding it premature to balance probative value against prejudicial effect until further trial evidence was presented.

However, the court granted the admission of evidence regarding alleged witness intimidation by one accused, finding its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to proper jury instructions and prior identification evidence.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to admit thermal-imaging video evidence, lay opinion evidence from a surveillance technician interpreting heat signatures, and demonstration evidence.

The defence objected to the lay opinion and demonstration evidence, and requested the full unedited video.

The court reserved decision on the lay opinion evidence pending further qualification of the witness, disallowed the demonstration evidence due to its high prejudicial effect outweighing its probative value, and permitted the Crown to present an edited version of the thermal-imaging video, finding the timestamp sufficient to convey time gaps.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of cell phone evidence and the use of a PowerPoint presentation summarizing call detail records at a first-degree murder trial.

The court permitted non-expert telecommunications company representatives to testify about the "general rule" regarding cell phone location in relation to towers, acknowledging exceptions.

The court also allowed the use of a PowerPoint presentation as demonstrative evidence, provided it was amended to be neutral, fact-based, and accurate, with consistent formatting and scale for maps, and subject to limiting instructions to the jury.

The accused, indicted for first-degree murder, applied for an order requiring the Crown to produce criminal records and police occurrence reports for all Crown witnesses.

The Crown agreed to provide criminal records but opposed the production of occurrence reports, arguing they were not first-party disclosure and that the third-party disclosure procedure had not been followed.

The court found that occurrence reports from the investigating police service (NRPS) for nine specific Crown witnesses fell within the Crown's first-party disclosure obligation under *Stinchcombe* and *McNeil*, as credibility was a live issue and the reports related directly to the investigation.

However, the court declined to order disclosure from other police services, deeming them third parties, and dismissed the third-party disclosure application due to procedural non-compliance under *O'Connor*.

The accused was charged with simple possession of crack cocaine.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the police detention, search of the vehicle, and strip search, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the police detained the accused based on mere suspicion and hunches rather than reasonable grounds, conducted an unlawful search of the vehicle, and performed an unjustified strip search.

The court excluded the evidence of the crack cocaine under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted.

Three inmates were charged with assault causing bodily harm to a fellow inmate at Maplehurst Correctional Centre on November 19, 2014.

The Crown sought to introduce video evidence of the assault with identification testimony from a correctional officer.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of the identification evidence under the Leaney test.

The court found that while the officer had prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the trier of fact to make identifications, the threshold reliability of the identification evidence was not established because the Crown relied on a Historical Unit Assignment document that was demonstrably inaccurate.

The document showed 35 inmates in a unit with a maximum capacity of 32, and showed inmates in cells where they were not actually housed.

Without reliable evidence of which inmates were assigned to which cells, the officer's identification methodology—tracking blurry figures back to assigned cells—could not meet the reliability threshold.

The charges were dismissed.

The accused appeared for sentencing after a jury conviction for trafficking a small quantity of crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime arising from an undercover police “opportunity drug buy.” The Crown sought a custodial sentence of eight months, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles of sentencing under ss. 718–718.2 and 742.1 of the Criminal Code, the court considered the offender’s youth, absence of prior record, stable employment history, and the very small quantity of drugs involved.

Although trafficking in crack cocaine is a serious aggravating factor, the court found minimal risk of reoffending and concluded that community supervision would not endanger the safety of the community.

A conditional sentence was imposed to balance denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with possession of six illegal firearms and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

The firearm charges were based entirely on videos found on cell phones seized from the accused's home, as no actual firearms were recovered.

The court had to determine whether the items in the videos were real firearms, and whether the possession occurred in Toronto and within the alleged timeframes.

The court found the accused guilty on two counts of firearm possession, relying on circumstantial evidence including the appearance of the guns, the accused's handling of them, and his threatening commentary.

The accused was acquitted on the other firearm counts due to lack of proof regarding location or timing.

The accused was also acquitted of conspiracy to traffic cocaine, as the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement had been reached.

This is a judicial interim release hearing for an accused charged with nine counts including attempt fraud, uttering forged documents, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The accused, a 42-year-old with a significant criminal history including prior fraud convictions and weapons offences, sought bail.

The Crown opposed release on primary and secondary grounds.

The court found the accused's testimony to be unreliable and lacking in credibility, with numerous inconsistencies regarding his family situation, financial circumstances, and criminal history.

An initial bail program proposal was deemed inadequate.

A subsequent plan involving a private surety collapsed when the proposed surety learned of the accused's background and outstanding warrants.

The court ordered detention, finding a substantial likelihood the accused would fail to appear and commit further offences.