Kelvin Ramchand

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought leave to intervene in an appeal by the provincial Crown of an Ontario Review Board decision granting an absolute discharge to the respondent, who was previously found NCR for a national security offence.

The motion judge dismissed the intervention application, finding the DPP's proposed factum argued the factual merits rather than confining itself to legal issues, and that allowing the intervention would prejudice the respondent.

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime following a high-risk takedown arrest and the execution of a search warrant at his home.

On appeal, he argued that the trial judge erred by finding the police used reasonable force during his arrest, by engaging in impermissible after-the-fact reasoning regarding a delay in his right to counsel, and by refusing to exclude evidence seized from his home under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the police use of force was justified given the appellant's history, the trial judge's reasons were not improper after-the-fact justifications, and the evidence seized from the home was not obtained in a manner that infringed the Charter because the search was temporally and causally disconnected from the unlawful police interview.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug trafficking and weapons offences, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found breaches of ss. 8 and 9 because the arresting officer's subjective belief for the arrest was not objectively reasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's Grant analysis that would displace the deference owed to such determinations.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the Crown’s appeal from a stay of drug charges entered under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The Crown argued that the trial judge should have deducted 92 days as a discrete exceptional circumstance due to a co-accused’s discharge of counsel.

The Court found no error in the trial judge’s approach or conclusion, holding that the Crown could have proceeded separately against the respondent, as it had with other co-accused.

The stay was upheld.

The applicant, having been convicted of drug trafficking and weapons offences and sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment, applied for bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed bail on the public interest ground, citing the seriousness of the fentanyl trafficking offences.

The motion judge granted bail, finding that the applicant was not a flight or safety risk, and that his appeal grounds—alleging the trial judge erred in the s. 24(2) Charter analysis by failing to consider s. 8 and s. 10 breaches holistically—were of moderate strength.

Balancing the reviewability and enforceability interests, the court concluded that public confidence in the administration of justice favoured release.

The appellant, Akshay Prasad, sought to reopen his appeal from conviction for cocaine trafficking, based on fresh expert evidence concerning the unreliability of digitally enhanced audio recordings and transcripts due to "priming" and listener bias.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the motion, finding the proposed expert evidence inadmissible at trial as it was not necessary and usurped the trier of fact's role.

The court also found the evidence not cogent and that due diligence was not met for its admission as fresh evidence on appeal, concluding there was no clear and compelling case of a miscarriage of justice to warrant reopening the appeal.

Brian Aguiar pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for trafficking and unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm.

Police found significant quantities of drugs and a Glock handgun in hidden compartments in vehicles registered to him.

The Crown sought a 9-year consecutive sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or a maximum of 3 years further imprisonment.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the sophisticated nature of the trafficking, the dangerous combination of drugs and a firearm, and greed as a motive.

Mitigating factors included the offender's difficult past, positive character references, and guilty pleas, which were particularly mitigating due to serious police violations of solicitor-client privilege during wiretap interceptions.

The court credited 397 days of pre-sentence custody at 2:1 due to harsh conditions, and also applied "Downes credit" for strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment for the cocaine conviction and 2 years concurrent for the firearm conviction, resulting in a net sentence of 950 days (approximately 2.6 years) from the date of sentencing, after accounting for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit.

The court declined a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for the serious nature of the offences.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of possession of a Schedule I substance for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed, arguing the trial judge erred by treating proximity and the appellant’s customary use of the bedroom where the drugs were found as a proxy for possession.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge carefully reviewed the evidence and provided clear reasons for concluding possession was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting other possibilities as unreasonable.

The sentence appeal was dismissed as abandoned.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit murder, brought an application to exclude evidence seized during multiple warrantless searches.

The court found the warrantless entry at 10 York Street was justified by exigent circumstances to prevent a planned shooting.

The warrantless entry at 88 Harbour Street and the seizure of a vehicle breached section 8 of the Charter, but the evidence was admitted under section 24(2).

However, the search of a bedroom at 15 Danum Road involved egregious Charter breaches, including a violation of the right to counsel and an invalid consent, leading the court to exclude the drugs and cash found there.

The appellant, Michael Weber, failed to surrender into custody as required by a court order and did not appear in court for his appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed his appeal as abandoned.

The offender, an aviation mechanic, was convicted of attempting to import cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime after participating in a police sting operation.

He used his airport security clearance to retrieve a package he believed contained one kilogram of cocaine from an airplane panel.

The court found his moral culpability was significantly higher than a mere courier due to his breach of trust and planning.

He was sentenced to a net term of 4 years and 11 months in custody.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of trafficking cocaine.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's admission and use of audio recordings and transcripts, the expert evidence relating to cocaine, and the conviction on an alternative theory of liability not explicitly advanced by the Crown.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of the audio recordings and transcripts, nor in the reliance on expert evidence to link drug lingo to cocaine.

Regarding the alternative theory, the court found no prejudice to the appellant, as the indictment's language covered the "offer to traffic" which was completed on an earlier date than specified for delivery, and this was part of a continuous chain of events.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought an application to exclude evidence seized by police during the execution of a general warrant and upon his arrest.

The court previously found that the applicant's Charter rights were breached.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court found that the police conduct was serious, noting that the lead investigator provided misleading information in the Information to Obtain (ITO) regarding the necessity of a general warrant.

Although the evidence was reliable and essential to the Crown's case, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious state misconduct.

The application was granted, and the evidence was excluded.

The applicant brought an application to quash a general warrant and exclude evidence obtained during a covert entry and search of his residence.

The police had obtained a general warrant that authorized them to enter the applicant's unit once identified, provided they determined there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of drug trafficking was inside.

The Superior Court of Justice found the general warrant invalid on two grounds: it impermissibly delegated the judicial function of determining reasonable and probable grounds to the police, and it violated s. 487.01(1)(c) of the Criminal Code because the police could have obtained a standard search warrant under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act once the unit was identified.

The applicant's s. 8 Charter rights were breached, and a subsequent hearing was ordered to determine the admissibility of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The appellant, Rajin Sunda, abandoned his appeal from conviction but appealed his sentence for drug trafficking and possession.

The parties jointly proposed a resolution for the sentence appeal, suggesting the remaining custodial sentence be stayed and replaced with a one-year probation period.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal the sentence, agreeing with the joint proposal.

The court emphasized the appellant's significant rehabilitative progress, including addiction treatment and compliance with release conditions, finding that re-incarceration would be detrimental to his rehabilitation and contrary to public interest.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of proceeds of crime arising from a drug trafficking investigation (Project O'Woodcraft) involving the sale of heroin.

The accused, a 20-year-old first offender, acted as a courier for his father, transferring cash proceeds from drug sales.

The Crown sought 3-4 years imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 21 months, balancing the seriousness of the offence and denunciatory principles against the accused's youth, genuine remorse, guilty plea, positive background, and lack of criminal record.

The appellant pled guilty to trafficking approximately 3.5 kg of cocaine over four transactions and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued the sentencing judge erred in applying the parity principle and in establishing an eight-year starting range before mitigating factors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application of the parity principle given the co-accused's lesser roles, nor in the determination of the appropriate sentencing range for kilogram-level cocaine trafficking.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl as part of a four-month RCMP investigation into drug trafficking in Ontario.

Over three transactions between May and July 2019, the accused sold significant quantities of drugs to an undercover police agent for approximately $100,400 in total, receiving only a nominal amount in the low thousands of dollars for his role.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years in the penitentiary, reduced to 8 years after pre-trial custody credit on a 1.5:1 basis.

The court rejected the defence request for additional credit for harsh lockdown conditions during pre-trial custody.

The appellants appealed their custodial sentences for production and possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana.

They sought a suspended sentence or an intermittent custodial sentence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in principle by the sentencing judge and held that the sentences were fit.

The appeals from sentence were dismissed, except that the victim surcharges were set aside.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence seized during the execution of search warrants at his residence and motor vehicle, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The warrants were based on information from a confidential informant and subsequent police surveillance.

Applying the Debot test, the court found the informant's tip was compelling, the source was reliable, and the information was sufficiently corroborated by police observations of suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions.

The court concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrants and dismissed the application.