Julia De Filippis

The appellant appealed a three-year penitentiary sentence imposed for two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking involving approximately 1.2 kilograms of cocaine and over 800 grams of methamphetamine.

The Crown had sought six years while the defence sought a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erroneously relied on other seized items (cash, cocaine press, ammunition, and other drugs) to determine his level of involvement, contending these items had not been proven as separate offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding the trial judge properly considered facts from the agreed statement of facts to assess the appellant's level of involvement and imposed a fit sentence considering all circumstances, including mitigating factors and the appellant's genuine remorse.

The accused brought an application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown charged the accused with possession of cocaine, possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime following a search warrant execution on October 3, 2016.

The case proceeded through multiple adjournments and judicial pre-trials, with significant delays in Crown disclosure.

The accused initially faced a discovery preliminary hearing scheduled for November 2017 but later elected trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in September 2017.

The court found that the applicable Jordan presumptive ceiling was 18 months (not 30 months as the Crown argued), and that the total delay of 18 months and 24 days, minus 44 days of defence delay, resulted in net delay of approximately 17.5 months, narrowly avoiding the presumptive ceiling.

The application to stay was dismissed, though the court criticized the Crown's disclosure practices as unacceptable and cavalier.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and multiple counts of breaching probation orders.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all counts.

The trial focused on whether the accused's driving on the Skyway Bridge on Canada Day constituted dangerous driving.

A police officer testified that the accused executed repeated aggressive lane changes at speeds of 80-110 km/h on a congested multi-lane highway, causing other drivers to brake heavily and take evasive action.

The accused denied making any lane changes on the bridge.

The court accepted the officer's evidence and found the accused guilty, applying the marked departure test established in R. v. Beatty and R. v. Hundal.