J. Leising

The accused was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance after police observed him handing a coffee cup to another individual in a parking lot.

The recipient's vehicle was stopped shortly after, and police found 101 grams of heroin inside the coffee cup.

The court accepted the circumstantial evidence of the police officers, finding that the only logical inference was that the cup contained heroin when the accused delivered it.

The accused was found guilty.

The offender was convicted of importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after receiving a controlled delivery of over one kilogram of heroin from India.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the offender's significant role in the commercial scheme.

The offender was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment on all counts to be served concurrently, reduced to 10 years and 7 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, previously found guilty of importing heroin and awaiting sentencing, was arrested on new charges of importing heroin while on bail.

The Crown sought to revoke his bail under s. 524 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties and a surveillance system, while also relying on an outstanding mistrial application based on alleged ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found the proposed release plan weak and the sureties unsuitable.

The court held that the accused failed to meet his onus under both the secondary and tertiary grounds of s. 515(10), concluding there was a substantial likelihood he would commit further offences and that his release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused's detention was ordered to continue.

The accused was convicted of simple assault after an altercation with a police officer during an attempted arrest that followed multiple Charter breaches.

Although initially charged with assaulting a peace officer under s. 270(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, the Crown sought and obtained a conviction for simple assault under s. 265 because the officer was not acting in the lawful execution of duties due to the constitutional violations.

The court found the assault serious, noting that the accused punched the officer and placed him in a chokehold causing the officer to fear for his life.

Despite aggravating factors, including the victim being a police officer, the court emphasized the accused’s youth, lack of prior record, remorse, community support, and rehabilitation prospects.

A conditional discharge was rejected as contrary to the public interest, but the court imposed a six‑month conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict house arrest and curfew conditions.

The accused brought a Charter motion seeking exclusion of narcotics discovered during a search following arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered whether police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest after observing what they believed was a hand-to-hand drug transaction in a shopping plaza parking lot.

The judge found the officers’ accounts inconsistent and unreliable, concluding the arrest was based largely on suspicion rather than objectively grounded reasonable and probable grounds.

The arrest was therefore unlawful and the search incidental to arrest violated s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court held the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused’s Charter-protected interests justified exclusion of the drug evidence.

The applicant, charged with drug offences following the execution of a telewarrant at his residence, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The applicant argued that cross-examination was necessary to challenge the reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant, specifically regarding the urgency of the telewarrant, the need for a night-time search, and the reliability of confidential informants.

The court applied the Garofoli test and granted leave to cross-examine the affiant, but restricted the scope to specific areas including when the affiant learned the applicant's name, the basis for describing the applicant as having a violent record and multiple firearms, and the failure to disclose a linked vehicle.