J. Vamadevan

The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Shagaran Senthilgumar of impaired driving contrary to section 320.14(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on a high THC blood concentration (72 ng/ml) found after a collision, arguing impairment beyond reasonable doubt.

The court held that no direct evidence established impairment at the time of driving, and that the THC blood drug concentration alone, even at levels far exceeding prescribed legal limits for other offences, could not prove impairment beyond reasonable doubt.

The decision emphasized the necessity of expert evidence and cautioned against judicial notice or speculative inferences based solely on THC levels, especially given alternative reasonable explanations such as a medical crisis (seizures).

This decision concerns the sentencing of two individuals, Adam Luangphasi and Alexander Le, following their convictions for multiple drug-related conspiracies arising from "Project Southam." Luangphasi was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine (Carpet Conspiracy) and two counts of conspiracy to import cocaine (Guyana Conspiracy and Plane Conspiracy), where he was identified as a top principal.

Le was found guilty of conspiracy to export cannabis (Cannabis Conspiracy) and also conspiracy to traffic cocaine (Carpet Conspiracy) and conspiracy to import cocaine (Guyana Conspiracy), acting as a close colleague to Luangphasi.

The court applied sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, emphasizing the severe societal harm caused by drug importation and trafficking.

It rejected the argument that a "dry conspiracy" (where drugs were not actually imported) warrants a significant sentence reduction if the conspiracy was not abandoned.

Luangphasi received a global sentence of 18 years imprisonment, while Le received a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, with specific concurrent terms for each count.

Ancillary orders for DNA and firearms prohibitions were also imposed.

The accused, Adam Luangphasi and Alexander Le, were tried on multiple counts including conspiracy to traffic, import, and produce cocaine, as well as participating in a criminal organization and possessing proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted communications, surveillance, and expert evidence decoding drug jargon.

Applying the Carter framework for co-conspirator hearsay, the court found both accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine from Guyana.

Luangphasi was also found guilty of a separate conspiracy to import cocaine using a private plane.

Both accused were acquitted of the criminal organization charges due to a lack of proven structure and continuity, and acquitted of the carpet importation and production conspiracies.

Luangphasi was acquitted of possessing proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought to admit out-of-court hearsay statements made by the complainant, W.W., an adult with Down Syndrome, in a sexual assault trial.

The court assessed the admissibility under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, focusing on necessity and threshold reliability.

The court found W.W. incapable of testifying meaningfully due to her communication limitations, thus establishing necessity.

Reliability was established based on the circumstances of the statements, including their spontaneity, corroborating behavioral changes, lack of motive to fabricate, and the declarant's relationship with the recipients.

The statements were deemed admissible.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, driving while prohibited, failing to comply with a recognizance, and failing to stop after an accident.

At trial, the appellant relied on an alibi defence, which the trial judge rejected in favour of the Crown's evidence identifying the appellant as the driver who fled the scene of an altercation and subsequently caused a collision.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) test and provided insufficient reasons.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof and provided adequate reasons grounded in the evidence.

The defendant, Rapinder Bains, applied for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, arguing that police investigator DC Khan lacked reasonable suspicion when providing an opportunity to commit a drug trafficking offence.

The court found that DC Khan possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion, supported by a confidential human source (CHS) tip and prior text communications indicating drug trafficking activity associated with the target phone number.

The court emphasized that the defendant's unsolicited communication initiated the interaction and that the case did not involve random virtue-testing.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found drugs in his vehicle during the execution of a search warrant.

The accused brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing the search warrant was improperly issued and his right to counsel was delayed.

The court found the search warrant for the vehicle was valid, but the warrant for the residence was invalid.

The court also found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel due to a systemic police practice of delaying access to counsel until after a search warrant is executed.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence seized from the vehicle and the accused's statement under s. 24(2) of the Charter.