Cocaine trafficking

The accused was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking.

The offences involved 28.7 grams of cocaine and 183.6 grams of fentanyl seized from a rental vehicle and a residential search.

The court found the accused to be a mid-level trafficker motivated by financial gain.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as inconsistent with the fundamental sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence given the large quantity of fentanyl, and imposed a penitentiary sentence.

Significant mitigating factors — including five years of compliance with stringent bail conditions, prosocial conduct, and severe collateral consequences to young children — reduced the sentence from a starting point of eight years to a net sentence of six years, reflecting one year credit for restrictive bail conditions and three days of pre-trial custody.

Michael Dalia was convicted of drug offences, including possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 16-year sentence for fentanyl-related counts, while the defence requested a global sentence of 10 years, arguing Dalia was a mid-level trafficker with significant mitigating factors, including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's criminal record, and the impact of fentanyl trafficking, applying principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The court also applied a "Duncan credit" for the unduly harsh conditions of Dalia's pre-sentence custody.

Ultimately, a 13-year sentence for the fentanyl count was imposed, reduced to 10 years after the Duncan credit, with concurrent sentences for other counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to nine charges, including cocaine trafficking and multiple weapons offences, after selling cocaine to undercover operators and being found with a loaded SKS assault rifle and other prohibited weapons.

The court considered the offender's Indigenous heritage, lack of criminal record, and guilty pleas as mitigating factors, balanced against the significant aggravating factor of possessing a loaded firearm for 'insurance' during drug trafficking.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years' imprisonment, less 1 year credit for pre-trial custody, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Sarah Davison pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and possession charges, including fentanyl and cocaine, and several Criminal Code offences.

The Crown sought a 6-year sentence, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court found Davison to be a mid-level dealer, distinguishing her from an "addict dealer" as characterized in prior case law.

Applying principles of denunciation and deterrence, while also considering rehabilitation, the court imposed a 6-year concurrent sentence for the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) trafficking and possession for purpose offences, 5 months concurrent for simple possession, and 30 days concurrent for the Criminal Code charges.

The appellant, Joshua Nuziato, appealed his sentence for trafficking cocaine, arguing the sentence was inappropriate given his guilty plea, insufficient weight was given to COVID-19 during pre-sentence custody, and the probation term was not legally available.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence fit and within range, noted the sentencing judge had considered COVID-19 as a mitigating factor, and confirmed that a probation order was legally available as the term of imprisonment did not exceed two years.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with cocaine trafficking offences, brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash search warrants for two residences and exclude the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found sufficient grounds for the warrant at the applicant's current residence, but insufficient grounds for his former residence due to stale information, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the s. 8 breach was at the less serious end of the spectrum and the reliable evidence was crucial to the prosecution of serious offences, thus admitting the evidence and dismissing the application.

Seven appellants appealed their convictions for offences relating to a conspiracy to import and traffic in cocaine, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing their applications for a stay of proceedings based on breach of their Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The appellants contended that the 30-month presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework should not apply because the Crown preferred an indictment, thereby creating a one-stage proceeding subject to an 18-month ceiling.

They also argued that delay in preferring the indictment constituted "wasted" time and that systemic or institutional delay was not adequately considered.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the 30-month ceiling applied to cases tried in superior court regardless of whether a preliminary inquiry occurred, that the Crown's delay in preferring the indictment was justified and did not constitute wasted time, and that the case's particular complexity justified the delay beyond the presumptive ceiling.

The defendants, David Brown and Daimian Johnson, pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking offences.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the substantial quantities of cocaine involved and their high-level involvement in the drug trade, and mitigating factors such as their guilty pleas, personal circumstances, restrictive bail conditions, and the anonymous surrender of firearms.

For Johnson, the court also considered his testimony at another trial.

The Crown proposed sentences of five years for Brown and seven years for Johnson.

The court imposed sentences of four years and seven months for Brown and six years and five months for Johnson, granting modest additional credit for restrictive bail conditions and the surrender of firearms, and limited credit for Johnson's testimony, which was found to be of little assistance to the prosecution.

Ancillary orders for DNA samples and firearm prohibitions were also imposed.

The accused was charged with conspiracy and importation offences relating to a shipment of automotive tire-changing machines from Panama containing 50 kg of cocaine.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on the accused's involvement in arranging the shipment, intercepted communications, and his presence at the warehouse during the controlled delivery.

The accused testified that he was duped by his co-accused and had no knowledge of the cocaine.

The court found the Crown's circumstantial evidence did not eliminate reasonable doubt regarding the accused's knowledge of the illicit contents, despite credibility concerns about the accused's testimony.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused were charged with multiple offences including conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking, and participating in a criminal organization following a lengthy police investigation involving wiretaps and surveillance.

The court found both accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic and trafficking in cocaine, relying on intercepted communications and surveillance evidence establishing their roles in an ongoing drug distribution network.

However, the court acquitted them of the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure or leadership to meet the statutory definition.

The court also dismissed the accused's application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, concluding that the 38-month delay was justified by the case's complexity and the transitional exception under the Jordan framework.

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the appropriate sentence for a first offender engaged in street to mid-level commercial drug trafficking involving cocaine and MDMA, where the offender had made substantial rehabilitative efforts while on strict bail conditions for several years.

Applying the principles in ss. 718–718.2 and 742.1–742.7 of the Criminal Code, the court found that a sentence of less than two years was appropriate and that a conditional sentence would not endanger the community.

Significant mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, absence of prior criminal record, guilty plea, employment history, and rehabilitation from drug addiction.

A conditional sentence of two years less 18 days with strict house arrest conditions was imposed, followed by two years’ probation.

The accused was charged with two counts of trafficking in cocaine, two counts of possession of the proceeds of crime, and one count of obstructing justice arising from undercover police drug transactions.

An undercover officer arranged drug purchases through telephone conversations and later met the accused in person for a transaction, during which the accused attempted to conceal the drugs in his mouth when police approached.

The court rejected the defence argument that voice identification and phone evidence were unreliable, finding that visual identification and surrounding circumstances clearly established the accused’s role in arranging and conducting the transactions.

The court concluded that the accused trafficked cocaine and attempted to obstruct police during arrest.

However, the Crown failed to prove that additional cash found in the accused’s wallet constituted proceeds of crime.

The accused were convicted after trial of trafficking in cocaine contrary to s.5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following police surveillance and the seizure of approximately one kilogram of cocaine.

The court dismissed a Charter application seeking to exclude the drug evidence and registered convictions after the defence conceded the Crown had proven the charges while preserving not‑guilty pleas for appeal purposes.

In determining sentence, the court emphasized the serious nature of cocaine trafficking, the commercial motivation for the offence, and the significant quantity involved.

Aggravating factors included participation as part of a trafficking team and the kilogram quantity of cocaine, while limited mitigation arose from the focused litigation of legitimate Charter issues and admissions that streamlined the trial.

Sentences of six and a half years’ imprisonment for one accused and six years for the co‑accused were imposed, together with ancillary DNA and firearms prohibition orders.

During a criminal jury trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the defence objected to the Crown calling a police officer as an expert witness on drug trafficking practices.

Following a voir dire, the court considered the admissibility of the proposed opinion evidence under the framework from Mohan.

The court held the officer was qualified through experience in drug investigations and that his proposed testimony regarding common trafficking indicators—such as multiple cell phones, separation of drugs and cash, and possession of large amounts of currency—was relevant and necessary to assist the jury in assessing the accused’s knowledge of the drugs.

The court limited the scope of the expert evidence, ruling the officer could not opine on whether the accused possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking or had knowledge of the cocaine.

The evidence was admitted subject to those restrictions.

The offender was convicted after trial of three counts of trafficking in cocaine and three counts of possessing proceeds of crime under $5,000 arising from a police sting operation involving small-scale cocaine sales over three days.

The offender was a first-time offender with stable employment and parental responsibilities but did not testify at trial and did not accept responsibility for the offences.

The court emphasized the importance of denunciation and deterrence in cocaine trafficking cases while also considering the offender’s youth and rehabilitative prospects.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the offender’s lack of remorse and failure to acknowledge wrongdoing.

A custodial sentence followed by a lengthy probation order was imposed to balance denunciation with rehabilitation.

The offender was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of oxycodone and methamphetamine, possession of ammunition while prohibited, and breach of probation.

Police surveillance and a search warrant led to the discovery of packaged cocaine, pills, brass knuckles, and multiple cell phones in the offender’s vehicle, as well as ammunition in his residence.

The offender had a prior criminal record including a previous conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking and was on probation for a violent offence at the time of the new offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for cocaine trafficking offences while considering the offender’s criminal history and the relatively small quantity of drugs involved.

A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for 315 days of pre-trial custody, along with ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after being arrested with approximately 253 grams of cocaine, additional controlled substances, and cash.

The court considered aggravating factors including the significant quantity of cocaine and the offender’s role as a courier in a commercial trafficking operation.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, cooperation with police, and rehabilitative prospects.

Balancing denunciation and general deterrence against the offender’s youth and rehabilitation potential, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation.

Additional ancillary orders included forfeiture of seized items and a firearms prohibition, while a DNA order was declined.

The accused was sentenced following a jury conviction for trafficking nearly three kilograms of cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $54,000.

Wiretap evidence demonstrated the accused’s ongoing and significant role in a multi‑kilogram cocaine distribution network, including negotiating price, quantity, and delivery.

Although the accused had no relevant criminal record and presented numerous mitigating personal circumstances, the court emphasized the seriousness of multi‑kilogram cocaine trafficking and the need for general deterrence.

Relying on Ontario appellate authorities establishing higher sentencing ranges for large‑scale cocaine trafficking, the court concluded that a penitentiary term within the 8–10 year range was appropriate.

The offender was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine, methamphetamine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to traffic cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The case arose from a large-scale police investigation into multi‑kilogram drug trafficking in the Toronto area, during which the offender negotiated the sale of three kilograms of cocaine and was later found in possession of additional multi‑kilogram quantities of methamphetamine and thousands of MDMA pills.

The court characterized the offender as a high‑level commercial trafficker and emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as the dominant sentencing principles for large‑scale drug trafficking.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of criminal record, strong family and community support, and evidence of rehabilitation potential.

A global sentence of nine years’ imprisonment was imposed, with concurrent sentences on all counts.

The accused was sentenced following conviction after trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking involving 111.85 kilograms of cocaine.

The court considered the extraordinary quantity, high purity, and multi‑million‑dollar value of the drugs, as well as the accused’s prior conviction for a similar offence involving multi‑kilogram quantities.

Although the court found the accused’s role was limited to that of a courier, the circumstances demonstrated a high level of organization, planning, and trusted involvement in a large trafficking enterprise.

Emphasis was placed on denunciation and both general and specific deterrence.

A penitentiary sentence of 15 years was imposed with credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.