Drug trafficking

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of a mixture of fentanyl and heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

At a Gardiner Hearing, the court found that the defendant believed he possessed only heroin and was not wilfully blind to the presence of fentanyl.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years imprisonment.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with electronic supervision, followed by three years probation.

The sentencing decision was grounded in exceptional circumstances including the defendant's genuine prospect for rehabilitation, completion of a residential treatment program, family reunification, and stable support from his step-grandmother.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of proceeds of crime arising from a drug trafficking investigation (Project O'Woodcraft) involving the sale of heroin.

The accused, a 20-year-old first offender, acted as a courier for his father, transferring cash proceeds from drug sales.

The Crown sought 3-4 years imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 21 months, balancing the seriousness of the offence and denunciatory principles against the accused's youth, genuine remorse, guilty plea, positive background, and lack of criminal record.

The accused was arrested in a stolen vehicle following a report of erratic driving.

A search incident to arrest revealed a loaded handgun, approximately 130 grams of methamphetamine, and 50 grams of cocaine.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and methamphetamine, various firearm offences, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and breaches of probation and weapons prohibition orders.

The court granted directed verdicts on several firearm charges after determining that the handgun was an antique firearm manufactured prior to 1898, which falls outside the definition of "firearm" under certain sections of the Criminal Code.

The court found the accused guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in both drugs, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, breaches of probation, breach of weapons prohibition, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and careless use of a firearm.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug-related offences following his arrest during a police investigation into drug trafficking and firearms storage at an apartment complex in Scarborough.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and search, alleging breaches of Charter sections 8 and 9.

The court found that although the arrest was precipitous, the officers had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances, including confidential source information about drugs and firearms, observations of an apparent drug transaction involving another suspect, and the accused's proximity to that suspect.

The court dismissed the Charter applications and found the accused guilty on all counts.

A young person was tried on charges arising from two separate incidents: a mass shooting at a Subway restaurant in Waterloo on April 19, 2019, where approximately 35 shots were fired into a crowded establishment, and a series of offences committed on May 16, 2019, including dangerous driving, fleeing police, and possession of a loaded firearm with serial number removed.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, particularly video surveillance footage, cell phone records, GPS data, and physical evidence recovered from the scene.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence establishing identity as one of the shooters and connecting him to the May 16 incident through a clear chain of evidence.

The defendants challenged the sufficiency of a search warrant that led to their arrest on narcotics and weapons offences.

The court upheld the warrant, finding reasonable grounds existed for the search at 110-90 Carden Street in Guelph.

The analysis considered nine confidential informants with varying degrees of reliability, prior criminal records of the defendants, and extensive surveillance evidence corroborating drug trafficking activity at the location.

The application to quash the warrant was dismissed.

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 accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine (2 counts), possession of marijuana, failure to comply with recognizance – curfew condition, and failure to comply with recognizance – possession of drugs.

The accused was self-represented at trial after multiple counsel withdrew or were removed.

The Crown's case relied on surveillance evidence, the discovery of a kilogram brick of cocaine in the vehicle and four baggies of cocaine on the accused's person, and expert evidence regarding drug trafficking.

The court addressed multiple Charter issues including searches incident to arrest, right to counsel, and change in jeopardy.

The court found all searches lawful, no Charter breaches, and convicted the accused on all counts based on circumstantial evidence establishing knowledge and control of the cocaine.

The accused pleaded guilty to three trafficking-related charges involving significant quantities of carfentanil, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine.

The court denied the accused's application for bail pending sentence, finding that he posed a substantial likelihood of reoffending and that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, with concurrent sentences on remaining counts, after considering mitigating factors including the accused's youth, family support, and employment history, as well as aggravating factors including his prior trafficking conviction, the dangerous nature of the drugs, and the large quantities involved.

The court also granted presentence custody credit, lockdown credit, and COVID-19 related credit.

The accused was convicted of eight offences including aggravated assault, possession of a prohibited weapon while prohibited, possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $5,000, failing to comply with probation, uttering death threats to police officers, and resisting arrest.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder.

The sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for shooting a friend in the chest during an argument over music, resulting in non-permanent injuries.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6.5 years for aggravated assault, reduced to 5.5 years to account for totality principles and a consecutive sentence on the weapons charge.

The court considered mitigating factors including the accused's youth, limited violent record, and family support, as well as aggravating factors including the serious nature of the offence, criminal record, drug trafficking, and lack of remorse.

The decision also addresses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sentencing.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking and conspiracy to import heroin, brought a constitutional challenge to section 36 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act (MLACMA).

The Crown sought to introduce documents from Pakistan regarding heroin seizures without requiring the applicants to test the evidence through cross-examination.

The applicants argued that section 36 violated their Charter rights to a fair trial and full answer and defence by permitting the admission of hearsay evidence without any assessment of threshold reliability.

The court found that section 36 fundamentally altered the rules governing hearsay admissibility in a manner inconsistent with fair trial rights and declared the provision unconstitutional.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl as part of a four-month RCMP investigation into drug trafficking in Ontario.

Over three transactions between May and July 2019, the accused sold significant quantities of drugs to an undercover police agent for approximately $100,400 in total, receiving only a nominal amount in the low thousands of dollars for his role.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years in the penitentiary, reduced to 8 years after pre-trial custody credit on a 1.5:1 basis.

The court rejected the defence request for additional credit for harsh lockdown conditions during pre-trial custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking but not guilty to firearms-related offences.

Police seized a loaded prohibited handgun and ammunition from under the driver's seat of a vehicle the accused was operating.

The Crown sought to establish the accused's knowing possession of the firearm through circumstantial evidence.

The court found the police investigation incomplete, as the two other vehicle occupants who were released before the gun's discovery were never investigated or called as witnesses.

The court held that reasonable alternative inferences existed regarding who placed the gun under the seat, and the Crown failed to negate these reasonable possibilities beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of the firearms offences but convicted of the drug trafficking charge.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

A Gardiner hearing determined that the accused believed he possessed only cocaine, not fentanyl.

The court found the accused was not wilfully blind to the nature of the substance.

The accused, a young first-time adult offender with strong family support and early guilty plea, was sentenced to two years imprisonment: fifteen months for cocaine trafficking and nine months consecutive for fentanyl trafficking, with ancillary orders including DNA databank sample, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine (2 counts), possession of marijuana, and failure to comply with recognizance conditions.

The defence brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a tracking warrant issued under section 492.1 of the Criminal Code, alleging that the information to obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to suspect and breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The Crown argued that the anonymous source's information was corroborated and confirmed through police investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the totality of the facts disclosed in the ITO provided reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was involved in drug trafficking and that the tracking warrant was properly authorized.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two accused on multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences.

The accused Barker conceded committal on most counts except simple possession of fentanyl.

The accused Duncan challenged committal on all counts.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused on trafficking charges related to cocaine transactions with an undercover officer on December 19, 2018, and on possession for purpose of trafficking charges related to drugs found in a rental vehicle.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit Duncan on possession charges related to prescription pills found in his bedroom.

However, the court discharged Duncan on all firearms offences, finding insufficient evidence of his possession of a firearm found in the basement.

The court committed Barker on all firearms offences based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the shoebox where the firearm was found.

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 appellant appealed his conviction for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and his sentence of six months' imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no basis to set aside the trial judge's credibility findings.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the sentence failed to reflect the appellant's peripheral role in the offence given the amount of marijuana involved.

The sentence was reduced to time served, with all ancillary orders remaining in place.

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 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.