Drug trafficking

The court considered whether the accused, Malachi Venus-Seaforth, had standing to bring a section 8 Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during a search of an apartment in Thunder Bay.

The court reviewed the facts, including the nature of the accused’s presence at the apartment, the degree of control exercised, and the legal principles governing reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court concluded that the accused was, at best, a transient occupant with minimal connection to the apartment and did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The application for standing was dismissed.

The decision concerns the conviction of Ja’Coy Stevenson for possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and several firearm offences.

The court found that Stevenson and Boris Kljujic were running a drug trafficking operation out of a Thunder Bay apartment, based on circumstantial evidence including the presence of large quantities of drugs, cash, drug paraphernalia, and a loaded firearm.

The court rejected the defence that Stevenson was merely a user, finding the only reasonable inference was that he was a trafficker with constructive possession of the drugs and firearm.

The court sentenced Evan Mitchell for multiple firearms and drug offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles such as totality, parity, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 55 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh custodial conditions, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The court sentenced Jamaal Lloyd Williams following his guilty plea to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and breach of a prohibition order.

The sentencing reasons review the factual background, Mr. Williams' criminal record, the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, and the joint submission of counsel.

The court considered the impact of systemic racism, the seriousness of the offences, and the mitigating effect of the guilty plea and pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7.25 years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Rasim Kaba and Hassan Talebi for importing and possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to commit those offences.

The court reviews the evidence, including the defendants' backgrounds, their relationship, the importation process, intercepted communications, and the police investigation.

The court finds both defendants' explanations implausible and concludes that the only reasonable inference is that both knew of the opium and conspired to import and traffic it.

Both are found guilty on all counts.

The court found Michael Alexander Llanos guilty of possession of drugs and a prohibited weapon (black brass knuckles) for the purpose of trafficking, following a search of his apartment.

The case turned on circumstantial evidence, including the location and packaging of drugs, the presence of drug paraphernalia, and the nature of Llanos' relationship with his deceased girlfriend, Kyla Joyner.

The court rejected alternative theories that Joyner possessed the drugs for herself or for others without Llanos' knowledge, finding that the only reasonable inference was that Llanos had knowledge and control over the contraband.

Hearsay statements by Joyner were ruled inadmissible.

The decision concerns the prosecution of Brandon Caleb for trafficking in a controlled substance, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications, expert testimony, and physical evidence, established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Caleb trafficked in cocaine and possessed a loaded firearm at his residence.

The court rejected alternative explanations and found the evidence did not support reasonable doubt as to his guilt.

The court considered whether police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Hassan Ozeir for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found that police lacked such grounds, as their observations of Ozeir were consistent with benign behaviour and did not match the pattern of drug trafficking described by tipsters or observed in relation to his brother, Yousef Ozeir.

The court concluded that the arrest and subsequent search violated sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the Charter breach and misleading police testimony.

The decision addresses an application by Tenzin Palden to exclude evidence of cocaine seized during his arrest, on the basis of alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court finds that while there was no breach of sections 8 or 9, and no breach of section 7 regarding body-worn cameras, there was a breach of section 10(b) due to delay in access to counsel.

However, the evidence is not excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was not sufficiently serious to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court considered an application by Adrian Davey to stay proceedings on the ground of entrapment after he pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court reviewed the sufficiency of disclosure to the defence and whether police had reasonable suspicion before offering Davey the opportunity to commit the offence.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding that the police had reasonable suspicion at the relevant time and that the defence was able to make full answer and defence.

The decision concerns the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in a prosecution for firearms and drug offences.

The accused, Hussein Al Hayawi, was stopped by police and found in possession of drugs and firearms.

The court considered whether the accused had knowledge and control over the firearms, ammunition, and cannabis found in the trunk of the vehicle, and whether the cannabis was possessed for the purpose of selling.

The court found the accused guilty on all remaining counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence established knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court sentenced Sukhraj Singh, who pleaded guilty to possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, to two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence in the community, followed by two years of probation.

The decision reviews the relevant sentencing principles, the aggravating and mitigating factors, and the applicable case law, ultimately finding that a conditional sentence is appropriate given the offender’s background, addiction, and compliance with strict bail conditions for four years.

Police executed a search warrant at an apartment, finding a loaded firearm and various illicit drugs (crystal methamphetamine, powder cocaine, fentanyl).

Two defendants, Daylo Robinson and Dalton Wilson, were charged with multiple firearms and drug-related offences, as well as breaches of release orders.

The court assessed possession (personal, constructive, joint) based on circumstantial evidence, including the location of contraband, a digital scale, and a "daily diary" containing drug price lists.

The court found Daylo Robinson not guilty of firearms and drug charges but guilty of breaching his recognizance.

Dalton Wilson was found guilty of possession of cocaine and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of fentanyl, and breach of probation, but not guilty of firearms charges and fentanyl trafficking.

The accused, Dominic Wright, faced charges related to drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under the CDSA and Criminal Code, as well as breaches of a release order.

The central issue at trial was whether the accused was in constructive possession of controlled substances and cash found in a condo unit.

The court found the accused in constructive possession of fentanyl and cash in the kitchen and bedroom closet, applying the principles of circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in constructive possession of fentanyl found in the dryer.

The accused was found guilty of most charges, including possession for the purpose of trafficking (oxycodone, MDMA, fentanyl in kitchen/closet), possession of proceeds of crime, and most breaches of a release order, but not guilty of possession of fentanyl in the dryer or the cell phone breach.

This criminal trial addressed charges against Gianni Deluca, including discharge of a firearm, firearm possession, and possession of fentanyl and fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that Deluca acted in self-defence when discharging the firearm, leading to an acquittal on that charge.

However, the court rejected Deluca's explanation that he acquired the satchel containing the firearm and drugs during the altercation, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed these items prior to the incident.

Consequently, Deluca was found guilty of the drug and firearm possession charges, including breaching a weapons prohibition order, but not guilty of possessing proceeds of crime.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences.

He admitted to trafficking cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime, and cocaine for trafficking.

The contested charges were possession of a firearm and possession of fentanyl for trafficking.

The court found the defendant guilty of the firearm charges, rejecting his explanation that the firearm belonged to another individual, Bogdan, due to inconsistencies in his testimony and strong circumstantial evidence (defendant's bank card and personal ornaments found with the firearm).

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the fentanyl charge, finding reasonable doubt due to weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence regarding the location and association of the fentanyl with the defendant's documents, despite the defendant's impaired credibility.

This case involved a criminal trial and Charter application where the accused, Omar Houssein-Hassan, challenged police conduct during an investigation into drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found that police breached the accused's Charter rights under section 8 (unreasonable search) and section 10(b) (right to counsel).

Specifically, the search of a hidden compartment in the vehicle exceeded the permissible scope under the Cannabis Control Act, and there was an unjustified delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel upon arrest.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court excluded the illegally obtained drug evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

As the Crown could not prove the possession of illegal drugs without the excluded evidence, both charges against the accused were dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of possessing fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The police arrested him based on a mistaken identity, relying partly on observations from a warrantless covert hallway camera.

The Crown conceded breaches of the appellant's Charter rights (ss. 8 and 9) due to the unlawful camera installation and subsequent arrest and search, as well as a late Report to Justice.

The trial judge admitted the fentanyl evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police acted in good faith based on their understanding of the law at the time.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the police's mistaken belief as to the appellant's identity did not, in itself, render the arrest unlawful, and that the s. 24(2) analysis for admitting the evidence was sound, particularly regarding police good faith.

The applicant sought bail pending an application for leave to appeal his conviction for possessing heroin mixed with fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed his conviction and sentence appeal.

The motion judge applied the three-part test for bail pending appeal under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, considering whether the leave application was frivolous, if the applicant would surrender, and if detention was necessary in the public interest.

While the applicant satisfied the surrender criterion and the leave application was deemed not frivolous (though with low prospects), the court found that the public interest, particularly the enforceability of the sentence for a serious drug trafficking offense, outweighed the reviewability interest, especially after the conviction had been affirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The application for bail pending leave to appeal was denied.

The appellants, Desiree McNeill and John Waechter, appealed their convictions for jointly possessing heroin and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

A central issue was whether police required a second warrant to examine a seized cellphone belonging to an individual not initially targeted by the investigation, given the broad authorization in the initial search warrant for electronic devices found in a suspected drug trafficking hub.

The Court of Appeal held that the initial warrant, supported by a comprehensive Information to Obtain (ITO), provided sufficient reasonable grounds to authorize the examination of any electronic device found in the premises, including those of unknown individuals, without requiring a second warrant.

The court also found no basis to challenge the reasonableness of the convictions, concluding that the trial judge's finding of joint constructive possession was reasonable based on the totality of the evidence.

Both appeals were dismissed.