Kathleen Nolan

The applicant, Michael Theberge, charged with drug and weapons offences, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

He argued that the police's use of a "dynamic entry" (battering ram, limited penetration) violated his section 8 Charter rights, contending it was an unwarranted and unreasonable use of force.

The Crown argued the entry method was justified by reasonable grounds concerning officer safety and the potential destruction of evidence.

The court, applying principles from R. v. Cornell and R. v. Pileggi, found that the police had reasonable grounds to depart from the "knock and announce" rule, made an individualized assessment, and did not act based on a blanket policy.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

This is an application for a s.520 review of a detention order.

The applicant sought bail, relying on material changes in circumstances including the COVID-19 pandemic, the withdrawal of some charges, and the availability of electronic monitoring.

The court conducted an open review but dismissed the application, finding the proposed sureties unsuitable and the release plan insufficient to address the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention, especially given the applicant's extensive criminal record.

The Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence regarding factual characteristics indicative of cocaine trafficking.

The defence objected on the basis that the officer was not properly qualified under the fourth Mohan criterion.

The court found that the Crown had not established that the officer understood her primary duty to the court rather than to the Crown.

The application to present opinion evidence was dismissed.

The charge was subsequently resolved by guilty plea to simple possession of cocaine.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl, cannabis, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a prohibited weapon, and three counts of breaching a probation order.

The Crown alleged that police lawfully stopped the accused for operating an E-bike with a non-functioning rear light and swerving behavior, detected the odour of fresh marijuana, and arrested the accused.

A search incident to arrest revealed quantities of controlled substances and weapons.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the stop, arrest, and search, and alleged a violation of the right to counsel.

The court found the stop and arrest lawful, but identified a technical violation of the right to counsel due to an 11-minute delay.

The court admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach technical in nature with no real impact on the accused's protected rights, and that excluding reliable evidence would undermine the administration of justice.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple serious drug and weapons offences arising from events on January 12-13, 2017, including possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana; possessing a loaded prohibited firearm; multiple counts of possessing firearms while prohibited; possessing ammunition while prohibited; and carrying a concealed weapon.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 years in custody, with the primary sentence of 9 years 9 months on the fentanyl trafficking count, plus additional consecutive sentences on weapons offences.

The sentencing emphasized denunciation and general deterrence in response to the fentanyl crisis in the community.

A physician pleaded guilty to uttering forged prescriptions, theft of prescription forms, possession of hydromorphone for trafficking, and fraud involving the Ontario Drug Benefit Program.

The offences occurred between January 2012 and August 2014.

The accused was a family physician struggling with severe substance addiction who obtained controlled substances through forged prescriptions and fraudulently claimed reimbursement from government drug plans.

The court imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence followed by three years' probation, balancing denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation and the accused's genuine efforts to address her addiction.