Cocaine trafficking

The appellant, a former police officer, appealed his convictions for bribery, attempting to obstruct justice, breach of trust, and trafficking cocaine, as well as his 13-year sentence and a $250,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The convictions arose from a corrupt relationship with a drug trafficker, from whom the appellant accepted bribes for protection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's jury instructions on reasonable doubt and credibility, admission of evidence, or handling of late disclosure.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, with the court finding the 13-year sentence fit given the gravity of the police corruption.

The fine in lieu of forfeiture was upheld, but the time to pay was varied to one year from the date of the appellant's release from custody.

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.

The offender was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

He acted as upper management in a commercial cocaine trafficking conspiracy that purchased cocaine at the kilogram level and sold it at the quarter-kilogram level and below.

The Crown sought 4-5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the scale of the operation and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years in the penitentiary for conspiracy and 2.5 years concurrent for trafficking.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, breach of a weapons prohibition, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence agreed that the appropriate sentence before pre-sentence custody credit was seven years.

The court considered the exceptionally harsh conditions of the offender's pre-sentence custody, including frequent lockdowns and COVID-19 restrictions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

Applying the principles from Duncan and Marshall, the court reduced the otherwise appropriate sentence by two years to account for these harsh conditions, resulting in a five-year sentence.

After applying enhanced credit for time served, the offender was sentenced to 98 days going forward.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking cocaine and one count of offering to sell a firearm to an undercover officer.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the drug operation and the accused's prior related record, against mitigating factors such as his youth, guilty pleas, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months, but granted 6 months' credit for time spent under strict bail conditions (house arrest) and 8 days for pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 12 months minus 8 days, plus two years' probation.

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.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine for commercial gain.

As a first-time offender with a strong employment history and family support, the court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of 2.5 years in custody on the trafficking count, with a concurrent 6-month sentence on another count.

DNA and weapons prohibition orders were also imposed.

The accused was charged with trafficking cocaine following an undercover operation and a subsequent search of her residence.

At trial, she brought a Charter application alleging violations of her rights under s. 8 and s. 10(b).

The court found that the police violated s. 8 by failing to show her the search warrant upon request and by conducting a strip search in a vestibule lacking adequate privacy.

The court also found a s. 10(b) violation due to an unreasonable three-hour delay in facilitating access to duty counsel.

Applying s. 24(2), the court excluded the evidence seized during the search, resulting in acquittals on several counts, but found the accused guilty of the initial trafficking offences.

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 Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana arising from intercepted private communications during a police wiretap investigation targeting a street gang.

The Crown relied primarily on intercepted phone calls and text messages between the accused and a co‑conspirator, along with contextual evidence about drug terminology and trafficking practices.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of voice identification, circumstantial evidence linking the accused to a specific phone number, and the interpretation of coded drug language.

The court held that the communications demonstrated a mutual criminal objective to supply drugs to the co‑conspirator’s customers, establishing the actus reus and mens rea of conspiracy.

The accused was found guilty of conspiring to traffic in both cocaine and marijuana.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine into Canada and attempting to import cocaine, arising from a scheme to ship packages from Costa Rica to Toronto through FedEx.

Intercepted communications demonstrated the accused’s involvement in coordinating shipments and arranging for a contact within FedEx to intercept packages before delivery.

The cocaine was discovered when two packages were intercepted in Panama, and documentary evidence from Panamanian authorities obtained under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act was tendered to prove the contents of the packages.

The court held that the foreign investigative and laboratory records were admissible under s. 36 of the MLACMA and could be relied upon for their truth after assessing their reliability and corroboration with other evidence.

The court concluded that the packages contained approximately 355 grams of cocaine and that the accused was a participant in a conspiracy to import the drug into Canada.

The offender was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of possession of proceeds of crime.

The court addressed whether the offender’s youth criminal record remained admissible for sentencing purposes under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, concluding the access period had not expired because the conviction date controlled.

Considering the principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and rehabilitation under ss. 718–718.2 of the Criminal Code, the court weighed aggravating factors including the commercial quantity of cocaine, trafficking in a public shopping mall, and the offender’s prior youth convictions.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, educational achievement, family support, and positive community involvement.

A custodial sentence was imposed as a conditional sentence would not adequately reflect denunciation and deterrence.

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.

Following a judge‑alone criminal trial involving extensive wiretap and surveillance evidence, the accused faced multiple charges relating to firearm trafficking, drug trafficking conspiracy, possession of firearms, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The central issue was whether the accused was the individual known as “Kia” in intercepted communications coordinating cocaine trafficking and the transfer of a handgun.

The court excluded voice‑identification evidence derived from statements obtained in breach of the accused’s Charter s.10(b) right to counsel, but held that overwhelming circumstantial evidence independently established identity.

The court found that the accused participated in conspiracies to traffic cocaine and a firearm and constructively possessed the firearm for the purpose of transfer.

However, the Crown failed to prove possession of a separate Ruger handgun or related proceeds of crime found in the residence.

The offender was sentenced after a jury convicted him of multiple firearm and drug offences, including possession of restricted and prohibited handguns with ammunition, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of heroin, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The offender committed the offences while subject to multiple lifetime firearm prohibition orders and while on probation, and had an extensive prior record involving firearms and drug trafficking.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection, noting the offender’s escalating pattern of reoffending and mid‑level cocaine trafficking involving over one kilogram of drugs.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of ten and one‑half years’ imprisonment for firearms, trafficking, and related offences.

Enhanced credit of 1.5:1 was granted for pre‑sentence custody pursuant to the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance in Summers.

Following conviction after trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the offender was sentenced for arranging to purchase a large quantity of cocaine through an RCMP reverse sting operation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the scale of the intended transaction, the offender’s criminal record, and evidence that he was armed and prepared to use violence to protect the drugs.

The court rejected arguments that delay between the offence and sentencing should substantially mitigate the sentence and declined to apply the totality principle based on earlier convictions arising from the same investigation.

Credit of 1.5:1 was applied for 511 days of pre-sentence custody.

A lengthy penitentiary term was imposed along with firearms prohibition, DNA order, and delayed parole eligibility.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of trafficking cocaine, possessing proceeds of crime, offering to transfer a firearm, and possession for the purpose of trafficking following an undercover police operation.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five to six years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the large quantity of cocaine sold against the offender's significant community volunteer work, minor dated record, and compliance with bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years in penitentiary, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The offender was convicted of multiple offences including trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic as part of a mid-level drug operation known as Project Bulldawg.

Despite strong family support and evidence that the offender was an addict-trafficker, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the kilogram-level quantities and prior trafficking record.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, reduced to 4 years after crediting 12 months for strict pre-trial bail conditions, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.