drug addiction

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of transferring firearms between September 4 and September 18, 2019, and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

An undercover police officer responded to an advertisement for camping equipment and crossbow bolts, leading to the purchase of five firearms and ammunition over a two-week period.

The accused was a licensed gun owner with a lengthy criminal record dating back to the early 1990s, including convictions for violence and drug possession.

The court imposed a sentence of six years in the penitentiary, less credit for pre-trial custody and enhanced credit for harsh conditions at the Central East Correctional Centre.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence against the accused's personal circumstances, including childhood sexual abuse, untreated learning disabilities, and drug addiction.

Michael Haughton, 47, sought a second bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, citing the availability of electronic monitoring as a material change in circumstances.

This followed a previous dismissal of his bail application where the Crown met its onus on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found electronic monitoring to be a material change but ultimately dismissed the application, concluding that the proposed release plan, even with electronic monitoring, was insufficient to address the substantial likelihood of re-offending due to Haughton's extensive criminal record, history of non-compliance, and severe crack cocaine addiction.

The court also found that confidence in the administration of justice would be seriously eroded by his release.

The defendant was sentenced following guilty pleas to drug-related and driving offences.

The court imposed a sentence of time served (64 days credited as 96 days on a 1.5:1 basis) plus one day, followed by 24 months probation with conditions including drug treatment, non-association orders, and a one-year driving prohibition.

The sentencing was significantly influenced by the defendant's contraction of COVID-19 while in custody at Maplehurst, which the court found to be a unique mitigating circumstance warranting a departure from the Crown's suggested range.

Michael Haughton, charged with numerous break and enter offences and breaches of court orders, sought a bail review based on a material change in circumstances, including delays due to COVID-19 and his asthma.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the Crown's case strong and the proposed surety plan inadequate.

Despite the increased risk of COVID-19 in custody and the applicant's asthma, the court determined that the risk to public safety and the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice outweighed these concerns, dismissing the bail review application.

This trial concerned custody and access to the parties' child, Pyper.

The father sought sole custody and limited access, citing the mother's history of drug addiction, mental illness, and alleged refusal to acknowledge the child's special needs.

The mother sought joint custody and a gradually increasing access schedule, asserting her recovery and ability to co-parent.

The court found the mother had made significant gains in her recovery and granted joint custody, emphasizing the child's best interests require both parents' involvement.

A gradual increase in the mother's access was ordered, with specific schedules for regular parenting time and holidays, and provisions for ongoing drug testing for the mother.

A police officer employed with the City of Kawartha Lakes Police Service pleaded guilty to breach of trust contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code.

The officer, who had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and developed an opioid addiction following traumatic incidents during his policing career, stole drugs from an evidence locker and siphoned prescription pills from a pharmacy investigation.

His criminal conduct resulted in eight active drug prosecutions being stayed.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional discharge and a suspended sentence, finding that while the officer's addiction and PTSD constituted exceptional mitigating circumstances, a jail sentence was warranted.

However, the court imposed a conditional sentence order to be served in the community rather than incarceration, recognizing the officer's rehabilitation efforts and the need to balance denunciation and deterrence with individualized sentencing principles.

The defendant, Kaitlyn Gougoula, pleaded guilty to multiple charges including conspiracy to commit murder, attempt to render the victim insensible by choking, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and breaches of probation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The charges stemmed from a severe and prolonged torture of the victim, Shawn Theobald-Lewertoff, involving duct-taping, burning, cutting, stabbing with a dirty needle, and physical assault, motivated by an accusation of theft and being a police informant.

The court considered a joint sentencing submission of 71 months global sentence, minus time served, taking into account aggravating factors such as the defendant being on probation, drug use during the crime, victim vulnerability, and group mentality, balanced against mitigating factors like an early guilty plea, remorse, youth, and family support.

This is a temporary care and custody hearing in a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.

The society sought placement of five children with their mother subject to society supervision and twelve conditions for twelve months.

The mother opposed the motion and sought placement with no supervision or conditions, alternatively with less restrictive conditions.

The court considered the statutory framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and the principles governing temporary care and custody orders.

The court found that the father of the two youngest children posed minimal risk given his current circumstances, including house arrest and criminal charges.

The court granted temporary care and custody to the mother for three of the children without supervision or conditions, granted limited supervision and conditions for the two youngest children, and made no order regarding one child pending further evidence.

The defendant, Tiffany Skye Johnson, was charged with three drug offences: possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of Methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

She pleaded guilty to the Methamphetamine and proceeds charges.

The trial proceeded solely on the Fentanyl trafficking charge.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis to the defendant's testimony.

Despite expert evidence suggesting trafficking intent based on the quantity of Fentanyl and associated paraphernalia, the court found the defendant's explanation for personal use, bulk purchase for cost efficiency, and necessity to carry drugs due to homelessness and distrust to be plausible and credible.

This created a reasonable doubt regarding the intent to traffick Fentanyl.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple possession of Fentanyl.

Richard Briscoe was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and pleaded guilty to failing to comply with bail conditions.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, with credit for 120 days of pre-trial custody.

The reasons for sentence extensively discuss the intersection of criminal law and drug treatment, emphasizing rehabilitation as a paramount sentencing objective for drug-addicted offenders, while also balancing denunciation and deterrence.

The court explored therapeutic jurisprudence and problem-solving approaches in sentencing, noting the accused's long history of addiction and criminal behaviour.

Liridon Imerovik pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking fentanyl and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He participated in a sophisticated scheme involving a pharmacist and a physician, trafficking an estimated 2780 fentanyl patches over several months.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of fentanyl, the calculated operation, Imerovik's integral role, the large quantity of drugs, and commercial gain.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, first offender status, youthfulness, and impressive efforts to address his fentanyl addiction, which was a significant motivator for his involvement.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives.

A sentence of 6 years in jail was imposed, reduced by 4 months for time spent on house arrest bail, resulting in a net sentence of 5 years and 8 months.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year s. 109(2)(a) order, a life s. 109(2)(b) order, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized cash.

The defendant sought a bail review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace.

He was charged with robbery, disguise with intent, dangerous driving, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and failing to comply with release conditions.

The defendant proposed a new release plan including his mother as surety for a higher amount, residing at her home, GPS monitoring, and drug counselling.

The court found that the new evidence, including GPS monitoring, constituted a material relevant change in circumstances, triggering a review.

However, the court ultimately found that the defendant failed to discharge the reverse onus on both secondary and tertiary grounds, given his serious criminal record, long-standing drug addiction, past breaches, and the escalating nature of his criminal activity.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

Ian Bullens was found guilty after trial by jury of offering to transfer a firearm and subsequently found guilty by judge alone of breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The court considered his extensive criminal record, prior firearm offences, and acknowledged opiate addiction.

The Crown sought a sentence in the range of 8 to 10 years, while the defence proposed 4.5 to 5.5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, which was reduced to 5 years and 8 months after applying 22 months of pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearm prohibition and a DNA collection order.

This child protection trial concerned two boys, N. and D., who had been in the child protection system since infancy due to parental drug addiction and domestic violence.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for extended society care (crown wardship), while the father, maternal grandmother, and paternal grandparents each proposed alternative plans of care.

The court found that none of the respondents could provide a stable and safe environment due to ongoing drug addiction, emotional volatility, and persistent family conflict that placed the children in loyalty binds.

The maternal grandmother was found to have actively undermined the father's access and court orders.

The paternal grandparents were deemed deluded about their son's capacity.

The court granted the Society's request for extended society care, emphasizing the children's long-term best interests for stability and insulation from conflict, and leaving access decisions to the Society's discretion.

Marcus Berger pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of four to five years, while the defence requested three years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of cocaine and the commercial nature of the activity, alongside significant mitigating factors.

These mitigating factors included Berger's guilty plea, his status as a first offender, his serious drug addiction at the time of the offence, and his impressive rehabilitative efforts since his arrest, including achieving sobriety, re-establishing family relationships, and building a successful business.

The court also noted that Berger pleaded guilty despite a breach of his Charter rights that would have weakened the Crown's case at trial.

The judge exercised discretion to impose a sentence below the Crown's requested range due to these unique circumstances.

This child protection application concerned the future of M.H., a child apprehended at birth due to parental drug use.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The father, B.H., sought custody or joint custody with his sister, S.H., or for S.H. to have full custody.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the father's long-standing and unaddressed drug dependency, dishonesty, and unstable behaviour, which posed a risk of physical harm.

The father's proposed plans of care were deemed unrealistic and insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The sister's late proposal for custody was also rejected due to her lack of insight into the father's issues.

Crown wardship with no access for adoption was ordered, as the relationship between father and child was not found to be beneficial to the child, and access would impair adoption.

The court also commented on the excessive delay in the proceedings.

The paternal grandmother brought a motion to set aside or change an order placing an 11-year-old child in the care of her parents, K.S. and A.H., who had a long-standing addiction to crystal methamphetamine and other drugs.

The motion was brought on an urgent basis after the grandmother learned that the mother had tested positive for crystal methamphetamine on October 11, 2016, but this information was not disclosed to the grandmother until November 28, 2016.

The court applied the test under subsection 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act, which requires that a child remain in the care of the person having charge unless the court is satisfied that the child's best interests require a change.

The court found that the parents failed to meet their onus to demonstrate that a change in custody was necessary.

The court granted the motion and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandmother, with weekend access to the parents subject to conditions including random drug testing and restrictions on discussing court proceedings with the child.

The Crown sought a review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the accused on bail, arguing errors in law and that the decision was clearly inappropriate, primarily on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The reviewing judge found no error in law regarding the Justice of the Peace's handling of the surety's cash deposit or her application of bail principles.

The judge also determined that the decision to release the accused was not 'clearly inappropriate,' given the robust release plan and the Justice of the Peace's positive assessment of the surety.

Consequently, the Crown's application for review was dismissed, upholding the accused's pre-trial release.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order of crown wardship without access for the purposes of adoption of a child born in 2013 to parents with significant histories of drug addiction.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing there was a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court found that while the parents had struggled with addiction and the mother had only recently made progress in treatment and recovery, the question of whether the mother had genuinely turned the corner on her addiction was a material fact requiring further evidence.

The court declined to grant summary judgment and instead ordered a mini-trial under the amended Rule 16 to determine whether there was a genuine issue requiring a full trial.

The accused, a pharmacist, pleaded guilty to defrauding the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan of $2.5 million over three years by knowingly overbilling for pharmaceuticals not purchased or dispensed.

The accused had repaid $2 million in restitution but $500,000 remained outstanding.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in custody, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence despite evidence of the accused's depression, drug addiction, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court emphasized that general deterrence is the paramount sentencing principle in large-scale fraud cases involving breach of trust.