Drug trafficking

The appellant, Muhammad Hassan, appealed his sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking of three kilograms of cocaine.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence of just under seven years.

The Court of Appeal found two reversible errors: first, the trial judge erred in finding the appellant was a high-level trafficker without sufficient proof; second, the trial judge erroneously rejected mitigating evidence of the appellant's difficult upbringing by taking judicial notice of the neighbourhood's circumstances.

These errors led to a demonstrably unfit sentence.

The appeal was allowed, the original sentence was set aside, and a reduced sentence of six years less pre-sentence custody was imposed, aligning with the Crown's initial proposal at trial.

The defendant, Tranh To Nguyen, was charged with the importation of 11 kilograms of heroin into Canada, found in a checked suitcase upon arrival at Toronto Pearson Airport.

The central issue was whether the defendant had knowledge and control of the drugs.

The defendant testified, denying knowledge and claiming the suitcase was a gift for a banker from a business associate in Johannesburg.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony, finding his account of the business trip and the suitcase implausible and his statements to border officers untruthful.

Based on the cumulative circumstances and the high value of the drugs, the court inferred full knowledge and control, leading to a finding of guilt.

This sentencing decision concerns Michael Chapman, who pleaded guilty to approximately 20 counts under the Criminal Code and two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offences included mail theft, dangerous driving, fleeing police, operating a stolen vehicle, identity theft, fraudulent credit card use, property damage, and uttering threats, alongside trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine.

Aggravating factors included a criminal record, significant victim impact, and the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs.

Mitigating factors were the guilty plea, remorse, addiction as a contributing factor, successful engagement in addiction treatment, completion of high school, strong family support, and a job offer.

The Crown sought a total sentence of approximately four years of incarceration, while the defence argued for a suspended sentence or a community-based sentence.

The court imposed a total net sentence of 20 months, to be served as a conditional sentence, followed by 12 months of probation, a DNA order, a lifetime s. 109 prohibition, and a two-year driving prohibition.

The judge found a conditional sentence appropriate, balancing the seriousness of the offences with the offender's rehabilitation and the principle of restraint, concluding that community safety would not be endangered.

The applicant, convicted of drug possession and trafficking and sentenced to 34 months' incarceration, sought bail pending appeal.

The Crown opposed the application on grounds of public safety and public confidence in the administration of justice, pursuant to s. 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

While the court found the applicant met the public safety onus, it noted residual concerns due to his recent criminal history involving firearms and disregard for previous release conditions.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the application, concluding that the serious nature of the drug offences, the substantial sentence, and the grounds of appeal not clearly surpassing the "not frivolous" standard, meant that releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug and driving offences following a police pursuit.

The court determined the defendant was the driver of the vehicle.

The defendant was convicted of possession of fentanyl, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, dangerous driving, and flight from police.

Acquittals were entered for public mischief, possession of cocaine, heroin, and oxycodone, and possession of cocaine and heroin for the purpose of trafficking, primarily due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's knowledge and control over substances found in other locations or misidentification of the substance.

The defendant, Zachary Collins, was found guilty of 11 counts related to drug and firearm offenses.

The defence brought an entrapment application concerning the firearm charge (Count 11), arguing that an undercover police officer induced the commission of the offence, going beyond merely providing an opportunity.

The court applied the two-branch test for entrapment from R. v. Mack and R. v. Ahmad.

The court found that while the police had reasonable suspicion, their conduct did not amount to inducement.

Despite the officer's persistence in inquiring about firearms, the defendant consistently indicated a willingness to procure them and initiated contact regarding the firearm transaction on October 1.

The court concluded that the police merely provided an opportunity, and the defendant chose to follow through.

The entrapment application was dismissed.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence under sections 8, 9, and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that a search warrant for his residence and his subsequent arrest lacked reasonable grounds.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were violated due to insufficient grounds in the heavily redacted Information to Obtain and lack of reasonable grounds for arrest.

However, applying the R. v. Grant analysis, the court determined that while the impact on the accused's privacy was significant, the seriousness of the police conduct was weak, and society's interest in an adjudication on the merits for serious charges (including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and trafficking fentanyl) outweighed the Charter breaches.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

Subsequently, the court found the accused guilty on all eight charges, concluding that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control over the seized items, particularly given the distinctive safe key found on his person.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting cash seizure evidence as discreditable conduct without proper notice, provided confusing jury instructions, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the cash seizure evidence was contemporaneous circumstantial evidence not relying on propensity reasoning, thus not requiring a Rule 30 application.

The jury instructions were deemed sufficient, and the verdict was reasonable given the compelling circumstantial evidence of the appellant's involvement in drug trafficking.

The defendant, Rapinder Bains, applied for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, arguing that police investigator DC Khan lacked reasonable suspicion when providing an opportunity to commit a drug trafficking offence.

The court found that DC Khan possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion, supported by a confidential human source (CHS) tip and prior text communications indicating drug trafficking activity associated with the target phone number.

The court emphasized that the defendant's unsolicited communication initiated the interaction and that the case did not involve random virtue-testing.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The appellant, Ronald Burgess, appealed his convictions for drug trafficking (cocaine, MDMA, proceeds of crime) and sought leave to appeal his sentence for marijuana trafficking.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge impermissibly used inadmissible hearsay wiretap evidence, which tainted the credibility findings against the appellant on the non-marijuana counts.

Consequently, the court allowed the conviction appeal, deeming the verdicts unsafe, and ordered a new trial for those counts.

The court also granted leave and allowed the sentence appeal, remitting the matter for re-sentencing on the marijuana trafficking conviction.

Djamila Panzo and Jeremy Bailey appealed their convictions related to heroin importation and trafficking.

Panzo appealed convictions for importing, conspiracy to import, possession for trafficking, and conspiracy to possess for trafficking.

Bailey appealed convictions for conspiracy to import, possession for trafficking, and conspiracy to possess for trafficking, having been acquitted of importing.

The appellants argued errors in jury instructions regarding party liability, the co-conspirators’ exception to the hearsay rule, and motive, as well as unreasonable and inconsistent verdicts.

The Court of Appeal found significant errors in the jury instructions that rendered Mr. Bailey's convictions unreasonable and inconsistent, particularly due to a lack of evidentiary foundation for his involvement and improper application of aiding and co-conspirator rules.

Consequently, Mr. Bailey's appeal was allowed, his convictions set aside, and acquittals entered.

Ms. Panzo's appeal was dismissed, as the errors in the jury charge did not directly impact her, and sufficient evidence supported her convictions as a principal.

The accused, Christopher Janisse, faced an eight-count indictment for drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The trial proceeded on a written statement of facts.

Janisse conceded guilt on two counts of possession of cocaine for trafficking and one count of possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found him not guilty of two counts of trafficking cocaine, determining that the circumstantial evidence, while suspicious, did not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found Janisse guilty of a third trafficking count and two counts of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for trafficking, concluding that the totality of circumstantial evidence established his knowledge and control of a drug stash house and the large quantities of drugs found.

The final judgment was guilty on counts 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 8, and not guilty on counts 4 and 5.

This preliminary inquiry addressed charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking against three accused.

The Crown sought to admit evidence via a s.540(7) application, primarily relying on police notebook notes.

The court found significant issues with the admissibility and trustworthiness of much of the Crown's evidence, particularly hearsay statements within officer notes, which prevented the defence from cross-examining critical witnesses.

While some drug trafficking activity was inferred, the court found insufficient evidence to establish constructive possession for most charges against Bogdan Butean and Justin David Gurley.

Natalie Tovah Abuhav was committed to stand trial only on the charge of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Percocet, as her identification was found with those specific drugs.

The other charges against her, and all charges against Butean and Gurley, were not committed for trial due to lack of sufficient evidence for committal.

The defendant, Garnett Akeele Grant, was found guilty after trial of five drug offences, including possession of fentanyl, crack cocaine, powdered cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of oxycodone.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 3.5 to 4 years' imprisonment.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, particularly the dangers of fentanyl, alongside significant mitigating factors, including the defendant's youth (18 at the time of offence), first-time offender status, challenging upbringing, and substantial rehabilitative efforts since his arrest.

Finding exceptional circumstances, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation, a $300 fine for simple possession, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized drugs and money.

The accused, Ahmed Ahmed, pleaded guilty to multiple offences including trafficking in crack cocaine, possession of proceeds of crime, possession of a loaded restricted weapon, possession of a firearm in violation of a prohibition order, and breach of recognizance.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a significant related criminal record, unlawful possession of a loaded handgun in violation of prior orders, and the harmful nature of crack cocaine.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and compliance with restrictive house arrest bail conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge applied principles of deterrence, denunciation, and totality, giving credit for pre-sentence custody (with additional credit for COVID-19 conditions) and restrictive bail.

The final sentence imposed was 1,006 days (approximately 2 years and 9 months) of incarceration, a lifetime firearm prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of money and items.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, primarily the defendant's fingerprints found on drug packaging discovered in a neighbour's yard, and the proximity of the defendant's parents' residence.

The defendant testified, denying knowledge or involvement with the drugs, explaining his fingerprints by routine household activities.

The court found the police investigation to be lacking and, despite suspicion, concluded that the circumstantial evidence did not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, as the defendant's testimony might reasonably be true and other inferences could be drawn from the evidence.

The defendant was found not guilty on both charges.

The appellant appealed his five-year global sentence for drug and firearm offences, arguing the sentencing judge erred by exceeding the Crown's four-year proposal without notice or reasons.

The Court of Appeal held that a sentencing judge must notify counsel and provide clear reasons when intending to impose a sentence higher than the Crown's proposal, even in the absence of a joint submission.

Finding an error in principle that impacted the sentence, the Court allowed the appeal and substituted a four-year sentence.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exclude evidence (cocaine, money, cell phones) seized incident to his arrest, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the arresting officer's testimony unreliable and incredible, concluding that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and failed to promptly inform the accused of the reasons for his arrest.

Consequently, the search incident to arrest was unlawful.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's rights warranted the exclusion of the evidence, as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

This is an application for bail pending appeal by Jeremy Bailey, who was convicted of serious drug offences and sentenced to five years' imprisonment.

He had previously been granted bail pending appeal but was subsequently charged with new drug offences (fentanyl trafficking) and breaches of his release conditions, leading to his father withdrawing as surety.

Although he was granted new bail pending trial for the fresh charges with new sureties and electronic monitoring, the Court of Appeal dismissed his application for release pending appeal for the original convictions.

The court found that despite the proposed strictures and new sureties, the applicant's history of flagrant and almost immediate breaches of prior bail conditions, coupled with the seriousness of the offences, undermined public confidence in the administration of justice and presented lingering public safety concerns.

This appeal concerned the admissibility of evidence obtained following an unlawful arrest and unreasonable search, and the reasonableness of the conviction for drug and firearm offences.

Police, after a search warrant was denied, arrested the accused as a suspected drug buyer.

A search incident to arrest yielded drugs and a firearm.

The trial judge found Charter breaches (ss. 8 and 9) but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding police conduct negligent but not egregious.

The accused was convicted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, finding sufficient grounds for investigative detention, no improper disregard of the justice of the peace's decision, and that negligent conduct does not automatically lead to exclusion.

The Court also found the conviction reasonable based on circumstantial evidence of the accused's knowledge of the contraband.