Drug trafficking

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for drug trafficking.

The trial judge had imposed a sentence based on a finding that the appellant had taken no steps toward rehabilitation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge materially misapprehended the evidence, as the appellant had in fact taken significant steps toward rehabilitation both before and after his release on bail pending appeal.

The court allowed the appeal in part, varying the sentence from the trial judge's decision to eight months imprisonment while maintaining the probation term and setting aside the victim surcharge.

The appellant was convicted of production of methamphetamine, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of the proceeds of crime following a trial before a Superior Court judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the issuance of telewarrants used to search two properties, the trial judge's refusal to permit cross-examination of the ITO affiant, the validity of the search warrants, and the reasonableness of the verdict.

The appellant also sought leave to appeal sentence, arguing the trial judge misstated the defence position on bail credit and failed to consider rehabilitative prospects and the principle of restraint.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from conviction and, while granting leave to appeal sentence, dismissed the appeal from sentence.

The appellants were convicted of three counts of possessing narcotics for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime following a warrantless search of their apartment and a subsequent search pursuant to a warrant.

The trial judge found the warrantless search unconstitutional but admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in his section 24(2) analysis by failing to consider the searching officer's misleading testimony and by improperly emphasizing objective grounds while diminishing the lack of subjective grounds.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed material errors in his Charter analysis, excluded the evidence, and substituted verdicts of acquittal on all charges.

The appellant appealed his conviction on charges of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of oxycodone.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 rights based on an anonymous Crime Stoppers tip and subsequent police surveillance.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in applying the Debot factors, concluding that the anonymous tip was neither credible nor compelling, and that the surveillance provided minimal corroboration.

The court determined that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant, thereby breaching his Charter rights.

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court found that exclusion of the evidence was appropriate given the seriousness of the state conduct, the profound impact on the accused's Charter-protected rights, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The appellant was arrested while attempting to facilitate a drug transaction with an undercover officer.

He claimed to be acting as a police agent under the direction and control of a detective.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's O'Connor application for third-party police records, found no air of reality to the police agent defence, and refused to leave it with the jury.

The appellant was convicted of trafficking.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's rulings on the O'Connor application, the air of reality finding, the jury instructions, and the Crown's closing submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and upheld the conviction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for multiple drug trafficking offences and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The charges stemmed from two indictments: the first arising from a warrantless police entry into a hotel room, and the second from subsequent search warrants based on information obtained from cell phones seized during the hotel room entry.

The trial judge found the hotel room entry violated s. 8 of the Charter but admitted all evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach was mitigated by police good faith and the appellant's reduced expectation of privacy.

The appellant was convicted of all charges and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentencing appeal.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court decision dismissing his application for orders in lieu of prohibition, procedendo, and certiorari with respect to a trial judge's ruling on territorial jurisdiction.

The appellant had been arrested by York Regional Police in Mississauga on drug trafficking charges alleged to have occurred in Peel Region, but was transported to York Region where the information was laid and trial proceedings commenced.

On the first day of trial, the appellant challenged the court's territorial jurisdiction.

The trial judge dismissed the application, and the appellant sought extraordinary remedies from the Superior Court, which were also dismissed.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that extraordinary remedies are available only for jurisdictional errors, not for errors of law in the exercise of jurisdiction.

The appellant was convicted of 21 offences including possession of cannabis, possession for the purpose of trafficking in cannabis, cocaine and ecstasy, possession of proceeds of crime, possession of a prohibited weapon, money laundering, and related offences.

He was sentenced to nine and one-half years imprisonment.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three grounds: the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment when counsel was removed on the morning of trial, the trial judge's failure to provide adequate assistance to a self-represented litigant, and the appellant's exclusion from trial in violation of s. 650(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded the appeal and the Court of Appeal allowed it, setting aside the convictions and ordering a new trial based on the trial judge's failure to provide sufficient assistance to the self-represented appellant.

Two separate appeals concerning the entrapment defence in dial-a-dope drug trafficking investigations.

In Williams' case, the trial judge found entrapment and stayed drug trafficking charges, but the Crown appealed.

In Ahmad's case, the trial judge rejected an entrapment application and convicted the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that police may provide opportunities to sell drugs to persons associated with phone lines reasonably suspected of being used in dial-a-dope operations, even without reasonable suspicion that those individuals are engaged in criminal activity, provided the police are conducting a bona fide inquiry.

The majority found no entrapment in either case.

The concurrence reached the same result but on the basis that police had reasonable suspicion that both accused were engaged in criminal activity.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine.

The respondent was convicted only of simple possession.

The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in excluding expert evidence regarding cocaine trafficking and in finding that the respondent was a heavy cocaine user without evidentiary basis.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal, finding no error in the trial judge's exclusion of the expert evidence or his findings regarding the respondent's cocaine use.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and related weapons offences, as well as his five-year sentence for trafficking.

The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding his presence in the bathroom and possession of the cocaine, that the verdict was unreasonable due to unexplained contradictions, and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because a key witness was not called.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact and credibility were supported by the evidence and owed deference, that fresh evidence regarding ineffective assistance did not meet the Palmer test, and that the sentence was fit and within the appropriate range.

Crown appeal against sentence imposed on a long-time cocaine distributor for a criminal organization.

The respondent was sentenced to seven years and 69 days imprisonment following guilty pleas to conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking in cocaine, committing an indictable offence for the benefit of a criminal organization, possession of oxycodone, and multiple breaches of recognizance.

The Crown challenged three aspects of the sentencing: the application of pre-sentence custody credit to the criminal organization offence, the concurrent sentencing of breach and possession offences, and the fitness of the five-year sentence for the trafficking offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal while granting leave to appeal.

The defendant, a 25-year-old Aboriginal woman with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to theft of prescription medication and three counts of trafficking in controlled substances (Hydromorph Contin, Oxycocet, and Adderall).

The offences occurred while she was employed as a pharmacy technician and involved taking narcotics from the pharmacy safe for personal use and to share with her then-boyfriend.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 2.5 to 3 years, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 30 months probation, finding exceptional circumstances based on the defendant's genuine rehabilitation efforts, completion of drug and mental health treatment programs, stable employment, family support, and Aboriginal heritage considerations.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, challenging the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest and subsequent search.

The appellant argued that police lacked sufficient grounds for arrest based on information from a confidential informant, contending there was insufficient information regarding the informant's source of knowledge and that inadequate corroboration was provided.

The appellant also alleged the trial judge improperly shifted the burden of proof on the Charter s. 8 voir dire.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly applied the test from R. v. Debot and that the totality of circumstances supported reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana, possession of proceeds of crime, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence on the basis of alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the initial investigative detention was lawful, the search of the vehicle was a proper search incident to arrest, and the asking of the accused's name did not constitute a breach.

However, the court found a breach of section 10(b) when police failed to facilitate the accused's right to counsel for approximately one hour after securing the apartment.

Applying the section 24(2) test from R. v. Grant, the court admitted the evidence, finding that while the breach was significant, its impact was minimal and society's interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.

The accused were charged with seventeen counts including uttering threats, forcible confinement, extortion, assault, intimidation, being unlawfully in a dwelling, and firearms offences.

The charges arose from incidents occurring in late November and early December 2013 in an apartment building in Ottawa.

The Crown alleged the accused took over an apartment and committed various crimes within it.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the accused guilty on several counts related to possession of a prohibited firearm, threatening with a firearm, and extortion, but acquitted them on other counts including unlawful confinement and various assault-related charges.

The accused was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police surveillance and a search warrant led to the discovery of 216 grams of cocaine in the accused's basement, where he was living with his spouse and children.

The Crown sought four years' imprisonment while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of three and one-half years' imprisonment with a six-month credit for strict bail conditions, resulting in three years' actual imprisonment.

The court rejected the conditional sentence argument, emphasizing the large quantity of cocaine, the prior trafficking conviction while on conditional sentence, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in heroin committed between October 2012 and January 2013.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two and a half years, while the defence sought a non-custodial disposition.

The court found the offender to be a low-level, addiction-driven trafficker who had made extraordinary rehabilitative efforts post-arrest, including successful completion of addiction treatment, mental health counselling, and community service.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day for the first offence, followed by two years of probation, with suspended sentences for the remaining three offences and concurrent probation orders.

The decision emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation for addict traffickers and the flexibility required in sentencing to achieve just results in exceptional circumstances.

The accused was charged with manslaughter in connection with the death of Edward Cieslik, who died from heroin overdose.

The Crown alleged that the accused unlawfully procured heroin for the deceased, divided it into doses, and injected him with one dose, causing his death.

The trial examined whether the accused's actions constituted unlawful act manslaughter or criminal negligence.

The court found that while the accused did traffic in heroin and inject the deceased once, the deceased's voluntary self-administration of a fatal second dose constituted an intervening act that severed the causal chain between the accused's conduct and the death.

The court applied the principle from R. v. Kennedy, finding that the autonomous decision of an informed adult to self-inject a lethal dose breaks legal causation.

The accused was acquitted of manslaughter.

Following a preliminary inquiry into drug trafficking charges, the court determined whether the accused possessed cocaine, crack cocaine, and heroin found at two residences during the execution of search warrants.

The Crown conceded committal on assault charges and two drug counts.

The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence of knowledge and control for the remaining drug possession charges.

The court applied the legal test for possession in the context of drugs found in residences and considered the inferences available from the evidence regarding residency, control of premises, and the value of the drugs found.