Entrapment

The appellant was arrested as part of a large-scale online police investigation targeting the buyer side of the juvenile sex work market.

He responded to an undercover officer's ad on an escort website, and after being told the purported escort was 15 years old, attended a hotel room where he was arrested and convicted of child luring-related offences.

He sought a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion over a sufficiently precise space and that officers should be limited to offering only the exact offences they suspect, not rationally connected ones.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, applying its concurrent reasons in R. v. Ramelson, 2022 SCC 44, and holding that Project Raphael was a bona fide inquiry and the appellant was not entrapped.

The appellant was one of 104 individuals arrested in Project Raphael, an undercover online police investigation targeting the buyer side of the juvenile sex work market.

He responded to an ad posted by an undercover officer on Backpage.com, was told the officer was 15 years old, and was arrested upon arriving at a designated hotel room.

He was convicted by jury on three child luring-related offences and applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

Following the companion decision in R. v. Ramelson, 2022 SCC 44, the Court held that Project Raphael constituted a bona fide inquiry and dismissed the entrapment application and the appeal.

The appellant was convicted of internet child luring after initiating contact in an internet chat room with an undercover police officer posing as an underage girl, proposing a meeting for sex, and being arrested at the meeting place.

The appellant applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing that the officer had provided him with the opportunity to commit the offence.

The trial judge dismissed the application, finding that no opportunity had been provided, and the majority of the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld that conclusion.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of Justice Miller of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Following conviction for drug trafficking offences, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment.

The Crown sought to rely on confidential informant information to establish that the officer had reasonable suspicion prior to offering the accused an opportunity to commit the offence, as required under Ahmad.

The Crown sought to use the Step Six procedure from Garofoli to present redacted information to the defence while allowing the court to review unredacted materials.

The court ruled that Step Six is available in the entrapment context, extending its application beyond the traditional warrant review setting.

The accused was charged with ten offences related to child pornography, sexual interference, and counselling sexual offences.

The Crown's case involved an undercover police investigation where Detective Constable Mailer posed as "Sara Mills," a fictitious mother, in response to the accused's Craigslist advertisement.

Over several days of online communications via Kik messenger, the accused engaged in explicit discussions about sexual acts involving children, sent images alleged to be child pornography, and made arrangements to meet.

The accused was arrested before the planned meeting.

The trial addressed three principal issues: whether the police breached the accused's Charter rights regarding privacy in electronic communications; which photographs constituted child pornography; and whether the accused was entrapped.

The court found no Charter breach, identified specific images as child pornography, and rejected the entrapment defence, finding the police investigation was bona fide with reasonable suspicion and that the accused was not induced to commit the offences.

The appellant pleaded guilty to a drug offence at trial, after which the trial judge entered a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment arising from a dial-a-dope operation.

The Court of Appeal set aside the stay and remitted the matter for sentencing, finding the trial judge had misapprehended the evidence and misapplied the legal test for entrapment.

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that the phrase "enters a verdict of guilty" in s. 691(2)(b) of the Criminal Code encompasses an order setting aside a permanent stay where that order is tantamount to entering a verdict of guilty, thereby grounding the appellant's appeal as of right.

Applying the framework from R. v. Ahmad, the Court held that the police had reasonable suspicion, before placing the call, that the phone number was being used for drug dealing, based on a detailed tip corroborated by vehicle and licence plate information linked to a person with an extensive history of suspected dial-a-dope activity.

The appeal was dismissed, a verdict of guilty entered, and the matter remitted for sentencing.

Two consolidated appeals arising from dial-a-dope drug investigations in which undercover officers, acting on unsubstantiated tips, telephoned phone numbers alleged to be associated with drug trafficking and arranged purchases of cocaine.

The majority affirmed the entrapment framework established in R. v. Mack and R. v. Barnes, holding that police must form reasonable suspicion — whether individualized to a person or tethered to a sufficiently particularized virtual location such as a phone number — before offering an accused the opportunity to commit a criminal offence.

In the first appellant's case, the majority upheld his convictions, finding that reasonable suspicion had crystallized during the call before the opportunity to traffic was extended, as the accused's use of drug-subculture slang corroborated the tip.

In the second appellant's case, the majority found entrapment had occurred because the opportunity to traffic was provided before reasonable suspicion was established, and accordingly reinstated the stay of proceedings.

The minority would have revised the bona fide inquiry prong to require only a factually-grounded investigation into a tightly circumscribed location motivated by genuine law enforcement purposes, under which both appeals would have been dismissed.

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 applicant sought to stay proceedings for the offence of making an arrangement with a person to commit a sexual offence under section 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code, alleging entrapment by a police officer.

The applicant argued that the officer randomly tested his virtue without reasonable suspicion and alternatively that the officer induced him to commit the offence by exploiting his vulnerable state.

The court dismissed the application, finding that reasonable suspicion developed during the investigation through legitimate investigative steps, that the officer was engaged in a bona fide inquiry targeting a known hub for online sexual predators, and that there was no inducement or pressure applied to the applicant.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime based on an agreed statement of facts.

He subsequently brought a motion to stay the charges on the basis of entrapment.

An undercover officer, with minimal training and no reasonable suspicion regarding the target, called a phone number obtained from a confidential source and immediately requested to purchase a specific quantity of crack cocaine.

The accused agreed and supplied the drugs.

The court found that the officer provided the opportunity to commit the crime without reasonable suspicion about the person or the phone number, and that the bona fide inquiry exception did not apply due to insufficient corroboration of the tip.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with communicating via telecommunication with a person he believed to be under 16 for the purpose of facilitating an invitation to sexual touching, and communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services of a person under 18.

The charges arose from Project Raphael, an undercover police investigation targeting purchasers of sexual services from minors.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, arguing the police engaged in random virtue testing.

The court dismissed the entrapment application, finding the investigation was a bona fide investigation conducted at a location where juvenile prostitution was active and reasonably suspected to be ongoing, and that the accused was not induced to commit the offence.

The defendant was convicted of trafficking in crack cocaine and related offences following an undercover police operation in Ottawa's market area.

The defendant subsequently brought an application to stay the proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

The court found that while the police did not have a reasonable suspicion that the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking at the initial contact, by the time the officer provided an opportunity to commit the offence, reasonable suspicion had been established through the defendant's conduct and statements.

The court also found that the police were engaged in a bona fide inquiry into drug trafficking in a precisely defined geographic area where criminal activity was concentrated.

The application to stay proceedings was dismissed.

Following convictions for trafficking in a controlled substance and possession of proceeds of crime, the accused brought a post‑trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis of police entrapment and also renewed an application for further disclosure regarding a confidential informant.

The court considered whether a police “cold call” offering an opportunity to sell drugs occurred before the officer had reasonable suspicion that the accused was engaged in drug trafficking.

The court held that the exchange between the undercover officer and the accused during the initial call gave rise to reasonable suspicion before any offer to purchase drugs was made.

The accused therefore failed to establish entrapment or a breach of s. 7 of the Charter.

The renewed disclosure request relating to confidential informant information was also dismissed as an impermissible fishing expedition into privileged material.

Following a conviction for trafficking in cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime arising from a street‑level undercover drug buy, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

The court reviewed the entrapment doctrine from R v Mack and subsequent jurisprudence, including the principles governing random virtue testing and bona fide police investigations targeting areas of suspected criminal activity.

Evidence showed the undercover officer conducted an opportunity buy in an area reasonably suspected of significant drug activity and did not induce the accused beyond offering an opportunity to sell drugs.

The court rejected the accused’s claim that the officer exploited sympathy or persisted unfairly.

The accused failed to meet the burden of establishing entrapment as an abuse of process.

The accused was charged with luring contrary to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused pleaded guilty to the offense and subsequently raised the defense of entrapment.

The court found that the police officer conducting the investigation was engaged in a bona fide, proactive investigation with reasonable suspicion that the accused was engaged in prohibited activity.

The court determined that the police did not induce the commission of the offense but merely provided an opportunity, which the accused freely pursued on multiple occasions without coercion.

The entrapment defense was rejected and a conviction was registered.

The applicant was charged with luring a person under the age of 16 by means of telecommunication contrary to section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant pleaded guilty but sought a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of his Charter rights under section 7 and claiming entrapment.

The police had posted an advertisement on Kijiji posing as a 14-year-old female and engaged in email communications with the applicant over several months.

The court rejected the entrapment defence, finding that the police conducted a valid bona fide investigation using a legitimate investigative technique at a location where the crime is committed at a high rate, and that there was no inducement that would offend basic community values.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed his conviction and sentence arising from an incident where he retained half of a quantity of marijuana that had been turned over to him while on duty during an internal police investigation.

He argued that the police investigation constituted entrapment and amounted to impermissible random virtue testing under the principles set out in R v Barnes.

The court held that the police had reasonable suspicion based on prior information suggesting chronic marijuana use by the appellant and that the reverse sting operation was a legitimate investigative step.

The court concluded there was no entrapment or abuse of process and upheld both the conviction and sentence, emphasizing the breach of trust inherent in the conduct of a serving police officer.

After being found guilty of multiple counts of possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment.

The court considered the entrapment framework from R. v. Mack and subsequent appellate authority, including R. v. Imoro, which distinguishes between legitimate investigative steps and providing an opportunity to commit an offence without reasonable suspicion.

The court held that the officer’s initial question during a phone call did not provide an opportunity to commit a crime but was merely an investigative step.

Reasonable suspicion crystallized when the accused willingly engaged in drug-related conversation using recognized slang for cocaine quantities.

The subsequent offences were independently committed by the accused and were not the product of police inducement.

The accused was charged with multiple counts relating to trafficking in cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking following undercover police operations involving text message communications.

The accused argued that he was entrapped because the undercover officer used flirtatious and sexually suggestive messages to induce him to sell cocaine.

The court applied the entrapment framework from R. v. Mack and held that the police had reasonable suspicion that the accused was engaged in drug trafficking before initiating contact.

Although the officer used sexually suggestive language to build rapport, she never promised sexual favours or rewards in exchange for drugs.

The court concluded that the accused was already engaged in drug trafficking and that the transactions were ordinary business exchanges rather than inducement by police conduct.

The accused was charged with offering to transfer a firearm (a handgun) while not being authorized to do so, contrary to s. 99(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that during ongoing drug trafficking transactions with an undercover officer, the accused made a clear and sincere offer to obtain a handgun for $2,500.

The defence argued the offer was not serious and lacked sufficient particularity.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting the defence evidence as unreliable and accepting the officer's testimony.

The court also dismissed the defence application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, finding that the accused, not the officer, initiated the firearm discussions and that the officer did not go beyond providing an opportunity to commit the offence.