Kester Yeh

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.

This decision addresses Ali Baek's Charter application to exclude evidence (10 kg of cocaine) seized from his residence, alleging breaches of his section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court conducted a Garofoli review of the warrants and orders, finding that the initial tracking warrant and production orders were issued without reasonable grounds due to erroneous, speculative, and misleading information provided by the police.

The police conduct was characterized as serious, involving reckless disregard for Charter rights and a failure of full and frank disclosure.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on Baek's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence, leading to its exclusion.

The offender was convicted of conspiring to import 300 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 15 to 16 years, while the defence argued for a significantly lower sentence based on the offender's limited role and the principle of parity with co-conspirators.

The court found that the offender played a minor role in the conspiracy and noted that co-conspirators with greater involvement received or were facing sentences of 5 to 6.5 years.

Applying the principles of proportionality and parity, the court determined a fit sentence was 8 years, reduced to 7.5 years to account for strict pre-sentence bail conditions.

The defendants, Basil Dixon and Nathan Brown, were charged with conspiracy to import cocaine following a large-scale police investigation ("Project Southam").

The trial, heard by a judge alone, relied heavily on intercepted communications and surveillance.

The court found that voice identification evidence from a detective constable was unreliable due to limited exposure and lack of formal training.

However, based on circumstantial evidence, including intercepts and surveillance footage, the court identified Dixon as "B" and Brown as "R" in the communications.

Applying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, the court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon conspired to import cocaine from Guyana (Count One) and that both Dixon and Brown conspired to import cocaine using a pilot (Count Three).

The accused, Ali Lalji, was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine into Australia.

The Crown relied on evidence extracted from seized cellular phones (Cellebrite data) and the testimony of a co-conspirator.

The court first ruled section 36 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act unconstitutional for violating Charter sections 7 and 12, as it fundamentally alters hearsay admissibility rules inconsistent with a fair trial.

Despite this, the Crown's evidence, particularly the Cellebrite data, proved Lalji's membership in the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that Lalji either had actual knowledge that the contraband was cocaine or was wilfully blind to that fact.

Lalji was found guilty as charged.

The accused, Gurmanpreet Grewal, applied under s. 715.23 of the Criminal Code to participate remotely by videoconference, along with his counsel, for an upcoming multi-accused trial involving serious charges.

Counsel cited age and COVID-19 vulnerability as reasons.

The court denied the application, finding that remote participation would seriously impair the accused's right to a fair hearing due to communication limitations with counsel and the unwieldy nature of technological accommodations for audio and visual evidence, especially given the seriousness of the alleged offences.

The defendant, Ho Ting Char, was charged with conspiracy, unlawful production of methamphetamine, and unlawful production of ketamine.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial video surveillance evidence of the defendant's non-verbal conduct at various locations associated with clandestine drug laboratories.

The court found the evidence, while suspicious, did not unequivocally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was participating in drug production or was part of a conspiracy, as innocent explanations for his conduct could not be excluded.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought a pre-trial motion challenging the validity of three judicial authorizations: a tracking warrant and two general warrants permitting covert entry.

They sought to excise information from the Informations to Obtain (ITOs), argued the affiant failed to provide full, frank, and fair disclosure, and claimed the general warrants improperly circumvented the requirements of a CDSA search warrant.

The court dismissed the application, finding no basis to excise information, that the affiant properly exercised his discretion, and that the general warrants were appropriate for the multiple covert entries sought.

The warrants were validly issued, and no s. 8 Charter breach occurred.

The defendants brought applications to exclude evidence obtained during a drug trafficking investigation, alleging Charter violations under sections 8 and 24(2).

The Crown charged both defendants with conspiracy to commit robbery and various firearms and drug offences.

The defendants challenged: (1) police observations made in a condominium hallway on February 22, 2016; (2) the search of a residence on June 9, 2016; and (3) the search of a vehicle incident to arrest.

The court rejected all applications, finding that the police conduct was lawful and that the defendants' reasonable expectations of privacy were not violated.

At a preliminary inquiry into Project Neebing, the Crown sought to commit the defendant to stand trial on seven charges including trafficking in cocaine and production of methamphetamine.

The defendant was discharged on the marijuana possession charge but the Crown sought to proceed on two disputed counts.

The court found sufficient evidence that a properly instructed jury could convict on both the trafficking and production charges based on circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, surveillance, and physical evidence of drug production materials and controlled substances seized from two residences associated with the defendant.

Joshua Lenhardt was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality and parity, and gave particular attention to the offender's aboriginal background under Gladue principles.

Aggravating factors included the commercial purpose of trafficking and the highly addictive nature of cocaine.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, a difficult childhood, rehabilitative efforts, stable employment, and family plans.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 12 months, comprising 6 months of house arrest and 6 months of curfew, to be served concurrently for all counts, along with a 10-year firearm prohibition and forfeiture orders.

The accused, Terrence Kum, brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging abuse of process due to the Crown's historical and deliberate non-disclosure of relevant information and the loss of evidentiary material.

The application centered on alleged police misconduct within the Toronto Airport Drug Enforcement Unit (TADEU), specifically concerning Officer Ross Adair's involvement in a prior investigation (Project E-Plug) where notes were falsified.

The defence argued that the Crown's disclosure regarding TADEU corruption was insufficient and prejudiced the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The court found that while the Crown could have provided more comprehensive disclosure, the information provided was sufficient to put previous defence counsel on notice.

The court determined that the defence failed to exercise due diligence in pursuing further disclosure and that the misconduct, while egregious, did not relate directly to the accused's case (Project O’Cook) to the extent that it warranted a stay.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that the conduct did not meet the "clearest of cases" threshold for a stay, and the Court of Appeal's order for a new trial provided an adequate alternative remedy.

Joshua Lenhardt was charged with possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained from an alleged arbitrary detention, unreasonable search and seizure, and violation of his right to counsel.

The court found that the initial police approach was not an arbitrary detention.

The warrantless arrest and subsequent search of his knapsack and vehicle were deemed lawful based on the officer's credible testimony that he observed marijuana in an open knapsack on Lenhardt's lap.

While there was a delay in providing access to counsel, it was found to cause minimal prejudice as no self-incriminating statements were made.

Consequently, the evidence was admitted, and Lenhardt was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a police search of her apartment.

She argued the search violated s. 8 of the Charter because the search warrants failed to properly describe the premises and were issued without reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found the warrants were invalid due to an inadequate and misleading description of the targeted premises in a multi‑unit mixed residential and commercial building.

Police continued searching after realizing they had entered the wrong unit and remained in the residence while obtaining a second warrant, conduct the court characterized as reckless and later approaching flagrant disregard of Charter rights.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis from Grant, the court held that the seriousness of the Charter breaches and the profound intrusion into the accused’s home outweighed society’s interest in adjudication on the merits.

The seized drugs were excluded from evidence.

The accused was charged with unlawful production of cannabis, two counts of possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, and fraud under $5,000 of electricity.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging unreasonable delay under section 11(b) and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Morin, considering the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice to the accused.

The total delay was approximately 16 months from the information being sworn to the trial date.

The court found that while the Crown caused approximately 1 month and 18 days of delay in providing initial disclosure, the remainder of the delay was attributable to inherent time requirements of the case, including the complexity of the charges, the need for a judicial pre-trial, and the time required for counsel preparation.

The court dismissed the application.

The applicant brought a Charter application under s. 24(1) alleging that his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) had been infringed.

The applicant was charged with possession of multiple controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of delay attribution under the Morin framework, examining the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, prejudice, and societal interests.

The court found that the operative delay fell within acceptable guidelines and that no actual prejudice had been demonstrated.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of oxycodone, possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and failure to comply with his recognizance.

The accused pleaded guilty to the failure to comply charge but brought a Charter application to exclude evidence of the drugs seized by police.

The court found that the accused was arbitrarily detained in violation of section 9 of the Charter and that the search of his person was unreasonable in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the drug evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted on the first two counts.