Jessica Legrand

Scott Bullen, a surety, brought a preliminary motion challenging the court's jurisdiction to hold a forfeiture hearing under s. 771(2) of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the certificate of default (Form 33) was endorsed prematurely and lacked sufficient information, and that the forfeiture proceedings should be stayed due to the principal's (David Bullen's) death and the Crown's staying of charges against him.

The court rejected all arguments, finding the certificate validly endorsed and that neither the stay of charges nor the principal's death precluded forfeiture proceedings against the sureties.

The appellant, David Réal Arsenault, appealed his conviction for marijuana production and possession for trafficking, and his sentence.

He raised two grounds: the trial judge's failure to assist him as a self-represented litigant and to rule on a constitutional motion regarding a search warrant, and the violation of his linguistic rights by forcing him to proceed without French-speaking counsel.

The Crown conceded the first ground, agreeing to a new trial and undertaking to seek a stay of proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on this basis, quashing the conviction and ordering a new trial.

Regarding the linguistic rights argument, the Court found that the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment was a reasonable exercise of discretion, as the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in securing French-speaking counsel over a six-year period.

The Court also found the appellant's new evidence on this point to lack credibility.

The appellant was convicted and sentenced on a charge of cultivation of marijuana under section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after entering a guilty plea.

However, the appellant was not given his election on the indictable offence charge prior to pleading guilty.

The Crown appealed the conviction, seeking that the verdict be set aside and a new trial be ordered.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, set aside the guilty plea and verdict, and ordered a new trial on the charge of cultivation of marijuana.

The accused, David John Mayne Bullen, faced seven charges related to cocaine trafficking and conspiracy, including instructing an offence for a criminal organization and historical trafficking charges.

The trial was the second for the accused, following a mistrial.

The Crown relied on evidence from "Project Mayday" and "Project Adelaide," involving police surveillance and intercepted communications.

The Defence admitted guilt for a smaller conspiracy involving the first three police agent cocaine purchases but disputed the larger conspiracy and criminal organization charges.

The court applied the Carter analysis for co-conspirator hearsay and found the accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking (Counts #1, #2, #3) related to the main conspiracy and the first three police agent buys.

However, the court found the accused not guilty of directing a criminal organization (Count #4) and the historical trafficking charges (Counts #5, #6, #7), citing insufficient evidence for a criminal organization and reliability issues with the police agent's testimony for the historical charges.

The accused brought a motion to change counsel to Me Diane Condo after his previous counsel could no longer represent him for a 10-week trial.

The Crown opposed the change, arguing Me Condo had a conflict of interest because she previously represented the accused's alleged co-conspirator, who might be called as a Crown witness.

The court found no disqualifying conflict of interest, noting Me Condo received no relevant confidential information from the co-conspirator, the co-conspirator consented to the representation, and the defense proposed a plan where previous counsel would cross-examine the co-conspirator if called.

The court emphasized the accused's right to counsel of choice and the significant delay that would result if new counsel had to be retained.

The applicant, charged with conspiracy and drug trafficking offences following a complex police investigation, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 60 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and transitional provisions, deducting periods of defence waiver and delay caused by discrete exceptional events, including a mistrial and a change of lead counsel.

The court concluded that the remaining delay was justified by the exceptional complexity of the case and the parties' reasonable reliance on the previous Morin framework.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and related weapons offences, as well as his five-year sentence for trafficking.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding his presence in the bathroom and possession of the cocaine, that the verdict was unreasonable due to unexplained contradictions, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because a key witness was not called.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility were supported by the evidence and owed deference, that fresh evidence regarding ineffective assistance did not meet the Palmer test, and that the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

Robert Martineau pleaded guilty to conspiracy to unlawfully possess/sell unstamped tobacco products and possession of property obtained by crime, related to 384 cases of cigarettes over 15 events.

The Crown sought a two-year custodial sentence, while the defence requested an 18-24 month conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Martineau's leadership role, lack of remorse, and profit motive, and mitigating factors such as his guilty plea and strict pre-trial release conditions.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and parity, the court imposed an 18-month incarceration sentence, reduced by 6 months for pre-trial custody (enhanced credit of 2:1) and a further 4 months for the onerous 44-month release conditions, resulting in 8 months remaining incarceration.

No probation was imposed.

Luc White pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess/sell unstamped tobacco products and possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown sought 12 months custody.

The defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence and a 9-month conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, as well as sentencing principles including parity and restraint.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence for count 2 and a 9-month concurrent conditional sentence for count 3, with strict conditions.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for possession of cocaine contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and reached an unreasonable verdict.

The cocaine was discovered in a plastic bag located beside the appellant’s seat in a vehicle after police removed him from the passenger seat.

The trial judge inferred knowledge and control based on the proximity of the drugs and their visibility once the appellant exited the vehicle.

The appellate court held that the trial judge’s findings of fact and credibility were entitled to deference and that the inference of possession was reasonably supported by the evidence.

No palpable and overriding error or misapprehension of evidence was established.