Drug trafficking

The applicant was charged with trafficking cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and firearm-related offences.

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter motion challenging the validity of search warrants for his residence and two vehicles, and alleging that a search of a storage locker was warrantless and unauthorized.

The Crown conceded that the storage locker search was warrantless.

The court found that the search warrants for the residence and vehicles were validly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds, but that the warrantless search of the storage locker violated section 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the evidence obtained from the storage locker under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the breach and its impact on privacy rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was charged on an eight-count indictment with offences relating to his daughter, including assault, uttering threats to cause death, sexual touching, sexual assault, and trafficking cocaine.

The Crown withdrew one count and invited acquittal on another.

The trial proceeded with evidence from the complainant and the accused.

The court applied the W(D) test and found reasonable doubt on all remaining counts, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The court found the complainant's evidence compelling but determined that the Crown had not met the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on any of the remaining counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of crystal methamphetamine for trafficking, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, failing to stop for police, possession of property obtained by crime, possession of break-in instruments, and breaches of probation.

The offences arose from a high-speed police chase through downtown Toronto during rush hour in a stolen vehicle, during which the accused damaged multiple vehicles, struck a pedestrian, and was found with approximately 2 ounces of crystal methamphetamine and stolen property.

The Crown sought a global penitentiary sentence of 4 years; the accused sought time served (approximately 2 years).

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years and 9 months, with credit for pre-sentence custody including Summers credit, administrative error credit, Duncan credit for harsh detention conditions, and a one-month reduction for COVID-19 pandemic impacts, resulting in 7 months remaining to serve.

The court also imposed a 4-year driving prohibition, DNA order, weapons prohibition, and 24-month probation.

The accused brought a Charter application under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence.

The search warrant was obtained to search a residence for crystal methamphetamine based on information from a confidential informant.

The accused challenged both the validity of the warrant and the particularity of the offence listed in Appendix B (which listed powder cocaine instead of crystal methamphetamine).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the issuing justice had sufficient grounds to issue the warrant based on the credible, compelling, and corroborated information from the confidential informant, and that the discrepancy in Appendix B was not a fatal defect.

In a temporary care hearing under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined whether three children should remain in the care of the Society or be returned to their mother's care.

The central issue was whether the mother had sole charge of the two younger children prior to intervention, or whether charge was shared with the father.

The court found that the mother's poor judgment in exposing the children to a serious drug trafficking situation, combined with her lack of cooperation with the Society's investigation and her provision of false information, established a reasonable basis to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to her care.

A supervision order was found inadequate to mitigate the risks.

The court ordered the oldest child to remain in the Society's care with the maternal grandmother as kin-in-care placement, and the two younger children to remain with their father subject to supervision.

The applicants were charged with possession of fentanyl, methamphetamine, and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of oxycontin.

Two of the applicants brought a motion for leave to cross-examine the sub-affiants of a search warrant as part of a Garofoli application challenging the validity of the search warrant for a motel room.

The applicants alleged that the police officers falsely stated in their arrest reports that they had been invited into the room.

The trial judge found the applicant's evidence to be inconsistent, evasive, and incredible, and dismissed the motion for leave to cross-examine the sub-affiants.

The accused pled guilty to manslaughter after providing a substance he believed to be cocaine to the victim, who died from ingesting U-47700, a synthetic opioid.

The accused, along with another individual, also ingested the substance and survived.

The accused failed to call emergency services when the victim was found unresponsive, instead calling for a ride.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence against the accused's genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and the fact that he believed he was supplying cocaine rather than a deadly synthetic opioid.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police found 114 grams of cocaine in six bags, a digital scale, and $1,390 in cash at an apartment in St. Catharines, Ontario.

The defendant had three prior convictions for drug-related offences, including two previous trafficking convictions.

The Crown sought a 42-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for 16-18 months.

The court imposed a 30-month custodial sentence, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation considerations and the defendant's 22 months of house arrest pending trial.

The defence subsequently sought a conditional sentence based on pandemic concerns and the recent Sharma decision, but the court declined to alter its original sentence.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence and vehicle on the grounds of a breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (unreasonable search and seizure).

The applicant raised three arguments: (1) the ITO failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe trafficking had occurred; (2) the ITO failed to establish reasonable grounds that evidence would be found at the residence; and (3) the warrant was facially invalid for authorizing searches of two separate independent places on a single warrant.

The court rejected all three arguments and found the warrant valid, admitting the evidence obtained from the search.

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

Police discovered 55.69 grams of cocaine in an apartment where the offender arrived with a key.

The offender had no prior criminal record, was employed in his father's business, and was the primary caregiver for his father who suffered from Parkinson's disease, dementia, and colon cancer.

The Crown sought five months incarceration; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation or, alternatively, a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence with the first five months under house arrest and the final three months with a curfew, followed by one year of probation with 100 hours of community service.

The accused challenged the validity of two search warrants issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on the basis that they violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a Garofoli application to determine whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrants.

The accused also brought a constitutional challenge to the "Step Six" procedure and sought the appointment of amicus curiae.

The court rejected the constitutional challenge, declined to appoint amicus, and found that the warrants could have been issued based on credible, compelling, and corroborated information from a confidential informant combined with independent police investigation, including OPP wiretap evidence of firearms trafficking.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and weapons offences involving methamphetamine and firearms.

The Crown sought 18 months to two years less a day, while the defence sought a time-served disposition citing COVID-19 pandemic concerns in correctional facilities.

The court imposed five months additional custody following 207 days of presentence custody credit, followed by 18 months probation.

The judge considered the pandemic as a sentencing factor but concluded it did not warrant a substantial reduction from the range discussed at the judicial pretrial.

The accused was found guilty of seven counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in various controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, GHB, hydromorphone, and cannabis), two counts of possession of proceeds of crime, one count of careless storage of a firearm, and one count of possession of a loaded prohibited weapon.

The accused operated a drug trafficking enterprise in concert with a co-accused from a hair salon and later from a residential address.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, with consideration given to Gladue factors relating to the accused's Métis heritage, childhood trauma, and rehabilitation efforts, while maintaining that denunciation and deterrence remained paramount given the serious nature of the offences involving fentanyl and heroin trafficking combined with firearms possession.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a motor vehicle stop.

The Crown alleged the defendant possessed 40 grams of cocaine found in a vehicle he owned and was operating.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the vehicle search under the Charter and argued there was reasonable doubt as to his possession of the drugs.

The court found the vehicle search was lawful as a search incident to arrest and under the Highway Traffic Act inventory search provisions.

However, on the merits, the court found the Crown had not proven possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as the drugs were located in an area accessible to the passenger, there was no evidence of knowledge or control by the defendant, and no other indicia of drug trafficking were present.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 12 months imprisonment plus ancillary orders, while the defence sought 90 days.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence, finding that while denunciation and deterrence are important, rehabilitation of an addict-trafficker serves the public interest.

The court considered the accused's significant rehabilitative efforts, including methadone treatment and counselling, his lack of prior record, and the collateral consequences of deportation as a permanent resident.

The sentence was balanced to achieve custodial accountability while preserving ongoing addiction treatment.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging an infringement of the right to a speedy trial under s. 11(b).

The accused was charged with importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The information was sworn on September 9, 2016, and trial was scheduled for June 25-28, 2018, resulting in a total delay of 658 days (21 months and 20 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that after deducting defence delay of 105 days, the net delay was 555 days (18 months and 13 days), exceeding the ceiling by 13 days.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The appellant sought judicial interim release pending appeal after being convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking a controlled substance for the benefit of a criminal organization, arising from investigations into Toronto-area gang activity.

The appellant's grounds of appeal concerned the legality of wiretap authorizations and general warrants, including issues regarding mobile device identifier technology, warrantless surveillance in condominium common areas, and the naming of the appellant as a known person.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous and granted bail pending appeal, subject to strict conditions including perfection of the appeal by January 12, 2018.

The applicant brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed on his residence.

The applicant argued that the affiant failed to establish reasonable grounds to believe he was engaged in drug trafficking, that material misrepresentations and omissions marred the Information to Obtain (ITO), and that he was assaulted during execution.

The court found a breach of section 8 of the Charter, determining that the redacted ITO was insufficient to establish statutory preconditions for issuance.

The court excluded the evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the deficiencies in the affiant's approach, combined with the serious impact on the applicant's Charter-protected rights, outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to commit trafficking in cocaine.

An undercover police officer testified that he met the accused at a bar, requested cocaine, and the accused made a phone call and arranged for a co-conspirator to deliver the drug.

The defence argued insufficient evidence of an agreement.

The court found that while there was no direct evidence of an agreement, the circumstantial evidence—including the accused's statement that "nothing comes through this place without me knowing," his phone call to arrange the delivery, and his approach to the vehicle before the transaction—established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused and the co-conspirator had agreed to traffic in cocaine.

The accused was convicted.

Two accused were charged with drug offences arising from a police investigation of a suspected marijuana grow operation at 21 St. Clair Avenue in Ottawa on June 25, 2010.

Eneida Pino was charged with possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Randall Scott Edwards was charged with possession of cannabis marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and unlawfully producing cannabis marijuana.

The Crown alleged that Pino removed a box containing 50 marijuana clone plants from the residence and placed it in her vehicle.

Edwards was found inside the residence during the execution of a search warrant.

Pino claimed she believed the box contained groceries and was unaware of its contents.

Edwards' defence was that the Crown failed to prove he was party to the grow operation enterprise or in possession of the marijuana.

The court found Pino guilty as charged, rejecting her testimony as incredible and finding she had knowledge and control of the marijuana for trafficking purposes.

The court acquitted Edwards, finding insufficient evidence to prove he exercised control over the grow operation or possessed the marijuana beyond a reasonable doubt.