Joseph Selvaratnam

The court sentenced Pritpal Singh for trafficking and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, possession of opium, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The case involved a Garofoli application regarding the excision of unconstitutionally obtained evidence from an Information to Obtain (ITO), which was dismissed.

The court reviewed the applicable sentencing ranges for large-scale heroin trafficking, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and imposed a global sentence of 13 years, with all sentences to run concurrently.

The accused, Pritpal Singh, was tried for multiple drug trafficking and possession offences alongside a Garofoli application challenging several search warrants.

The court dismissed the majority of the Garofoli application, finding that the accused did not have standing to seek excision of evidence obtained through the breach of a third party's Charter rights, and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) established reasonable grounds for most of the warrants.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Fact, the court found the accused guilty of trafficking heroin, possession of heroin and opium for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, relying on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of constructive possession.

The co-accused daughter was acquitted at the Crown's request.

The applicants, Lakhpreet Brar and Sukhvir Singh, sought a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter due to a breach of their section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating the total delay for Brar as 22 months and 10 days, and for Singh as 24 months and 8 days, both exceeding the 18-month Provincial Court ceiling.

The court found minimal defence delay (3 days for Brar, 4 days for Singh) and rejected arguments that COVID-19 or the case's complexity constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

Consequently, the court found a breach of the applicants' Charter rights and ordered a stay of proceedings for both.

Youssef Messoudi was found guilty of importing 754 grams of methoxyacetyl fentanyl, an analogue of fentanyl with an estimated street value of $23-38 million, and occupying a vehicle with a prohibited weapon.

The Crown sought a sentence of 15-20 years, while the defence proposed 8 years.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as paramount for fentanyl offences, acknowledging the drug's extreme danger and societal impact.

While considering the offender's youth (23 years old) and rehabilitative efforts (completing high school), the court found him to be involved beyond a simple street trafficker.

A Charter s. 10(a) breach (failure to promptly inform of arrest reason) was found but did not warrant a sentence reduction due to lack of deliberate police misconduct.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 years for importing fentanyl and 3 years concurrent for the firearms offence, with a credit of 1 year for pre-trial custody and house arrest, resulting in a total sentence of 11 years imprisonment.

The appellant appealed his sentence for possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of property obtained by crime, and conspiracy.

The trial judge had initially imposed a 24-month less one day global term, then reconsidered the availability of a conditional sentence after R. v. Sharma.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle in the trial judge's analysis, which concluded that a conditional sentence was not fit given the totality of circumstances and sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant, Youssef Messoudi, brought an application to exclude evidence in a criminal prosecution for drug and firearm offences, alleging infringements of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) (right to be promptly informed of reasons for detention) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found a serious breach of section 10(a) because police officers initially detained and handcuffed Messoudi for 15-20 minutes without informing him of the reasons for his detention.

However, the court found no breach of section 10(b), accepting that a subsequent officer informed Messoudi of his right to counsel immediately upon taking custody, and Messoudi chose to wait to speak to his lawyer at the police station.

Applying the section 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that the police conduct, while serious, was not deliberate misconduct, and the evidence sought to be excluded (gun, controlled delivery observations) was not directly linked to the section 10(a) breach.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The appellant appealed his sentence of three years imprisonment imposed following a guilty plea to possession for the purpose of trafficking of two ounces of methamphetamine.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by failing to give meaningful credit for the early guilty plea, despite acknowledging that substantial credit was warranted.

The court considered the appellant's difficult background, including childhood sexual abuse and early drug addiction, as well as his progress in custody.

The sentence was reduced to two years imprisonment.

During a trial for conspiracy to traffic in controlled substances, the Crown sought to introduce ten recorded conversations obtained via a room probe.

The accused opposed the admission of the evidence, arguing the audio quality was too poor to be reliable.

Following a voir dire, the court found that eight of the recordings were largely inaudible and lacked sufficient context to permit a fair and reliable assessment of their substance.

Portions of two recordings were found to be sufficiently clear to meet the threshold test for admissibility, subject to the Crown satisfying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule at trial.

The applicants sought revocation of two restraint orders issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and return of property proceeds held by the Seized Property Management Directorate Branch.

The Crown had previously dismissed its forfeiture application after over 35 days of hearings, finding no evidence of complicity or collusion on the part of the applicants.

The court granted the application, ordering revocation of the restraint orders and distribution of the remaining proceeds pursuant to a consent order among the interested parties.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 90-day adjournment to allow the Civil Remedies Office to investigate whether to commence separate proceedings, finding such a referral constituted an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already determined.

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.