Kevin McGilly

The accused was charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and multiple firearm-related offences following a search warrant execution at a residence in Brantford.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The accused was found in a locked bathroom near satchels containing cocaine and a handgun, and was observed wearing a similar satchel minutes before the warrant was executed.

The defence argued that the accused's connection to the residence was unclear and that the drugs and firearms could have been placed by other occupants.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Villaroman and found that while the Crown's case was superficially compelling, there remained reasonable alternative inferences consistent with innocence.

The court found that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the drugs and firearms, and acquitted on all charges.

The gaoler brought a detention review under s.525 of the Criminal Code for the accused, who was detained on drug charges.

The trial had already commenced and was nearing judgment.

The court dismissed the review, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s.525 because the trial had started, and any bail application at that stage must be made to the trial judge under s.523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, Alexa Davis, was charged with possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possessing proceeds of crime.

She pleaded not guilty to both charges.

The central issue was whether the 23 grams of fentanyl found on her person was for personal use or trafficking.

The court, applying principles of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt, found that while there were indicia of both personal use and trafficking, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fentanyl was for trafficking.

The court also found the expert evidence regarding user behaviour to be inadmissible or of limited weight.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty on both counts.

The applicant, Jermaine Watson, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, brought an application to exclude evidence seized by police following his arrest and searches of his person and vehicle, alleging breaches of his Charter rights (ss. 7, 8, 9).

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the warrantless arrest, making the subsequent searches unlawful.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct (arrest without reasonable grounds, public search) and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits, despite the reliability of the evidence.

The application to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter was granted.

Shawn Atkinson pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking carfentanil into a detention centre.

The court considered the extreme danger of carfentanil and the aggravating nature of smuggling drugs into a custodial setting, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

However, the court also balanced these principles with the offender's youth, difficult upbringing, and prospects for rehabilitation, as per the principles for youthful offenders.

Given the lack of specific precedent for carfentanil trafficking, the court imposed a sentence at the high end of the Crown's requested range.

The accused, Hal Clayton, was arrested for driving with a suspended license, leading to a vehicle search that uncovered controlled substances.

Clayton brought a Charter application alleging violations of his s. 8 (unlawful search) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The court found that the vehicle search was a pretextual search, not genuinely for a driver's license, and thus unlawful.

Additionally, the police violated the accused's right to counsel by delaying advisement of rights and by questioning him after he had requested a lawyer but before he had access to one.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the serious and cumulative nature of the Charter breaches by multiple officers outweighed society's interest in admitting the evidence.

Consequently, all evidence found during the search was excluded from the trial.

The accused was charged with possession of cannabis resin, possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, possession of property obtained by offence, prowl by night near a dwelling house, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

Police conducted surveillance on a residence and stopped the accused as he left on a bicycle, claiming he was riding without a light and on the sidewalk in violation of the Highway Traffic Act and a municipal by-law.

The accused fled and was apprehended after an extensive police pursuit.

The court found that the stop was pretextual and unlawful, violating sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court also found minor violations of section 10 rights.

All evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and all charges were dismissed.

The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 2 years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day with strict house arrest.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and applied the criteria for a conditional sentence from *R. v. Proulx*.

Given the offender's lack of criminal record, strong family support, and low risk of re-offending, the court found a conditional sentence appropriate, concluding it could achieve punitive and restorative objectives effectively.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, possession of stolen license plates, and breach of probation arising from an incident on January 31, 2014, in a parking lot behind a bar in Hamilton.

Two plainclothes police officers observed a vehicle with three occupants and initiated a liquor license investigation.

When the officers approached, the vehicle accelerated and fled the scene.

The central issue was identification of the driver.

The court found the accused guilty of possession of stolen plates and breach of probation but acquitted on the dangerous driving charge due to insufficient evidence regarding the officer's precise location at the time of acceleration and uncertainty about whether the officer was directly in front of the vehicle.