Ketamine

The accused pleaded guilty to importing a Schedule 1 substance (ketamine) pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused arrived at Toronto Pearson Airport from Frankfurt, Germany on March 7, 2025, with 7.985 kg of ketamine concealed in his suitcase.

The Crown sought an eight-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought four years with enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The court imposed a six-year custodial sentence, reduced by 315 days of Summers credit and 194 days of Duncan credit for harsh detention conditions, resulting in a net sentence of four years and seven months.

Ancillary orders included a mandatory 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture order.

Jerome Bosnjak was found guilty of multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in Schedule I drugs (crystal methamphetamine, cocaine, Ketamine, GHB) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody, for the drug trafficking offences, with a concurrent 30-day sentence for proceeds of crime.

Aggravating factors included the commercial nature of the drug operation, the offender's absconding during trial, and a complete lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors were few, primarily the agreement to an Agreed Statement of Facts.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA sample order, and forfeiture of seized cash and drug paraphernalia.

The appellants, Ting Lin and Shuhao Shi, appealed their convictions for unlawful possession of a Class A precursor (GBL) for producing a controlled substance (GHB) and unlawfully possessing ketamine for trafficking.

They also sought leave to appeal their sentences of six years imprisonment.

The primary ground of appeal was the trial judge's alleged error in failing to instruct the jury on the defence of honest but mistaken belief that their activities were authorized.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, holding that the Crown is not required to prove an accused's knowledge that their possession was unauthorized, as this would amount to proving knowledge of the law, contrary to s. 19 of the Criminal Code and s. 48(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court found no air of reality to the mistake of fact defence based on the evidence.

Leave to appeal sentences was granted, but the appeals were dismissed as the sentences were not demonstrably unfit.

The defendant, Ho Ting Char, was charged with conspiracy, unlawful production of methamphetamine, and unlawful production of ketamine.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial video surveillance evidence of the defendant's non-verbal conduct at various locations associated with clandestine drug laboratories.

The court found the evidence, while suspicious, did not unequivocally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew he was participating in drug production or was part of a conspiracy, as innocent explanations for his conduct could not be excluded.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The defendants were convicted of possession of GBL for the purpose of producing GHB and possession of Ketamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 8.5 years of incarceration, while the defendants sought 4 to 5 years.

The court found the operation to be a mid-level commercial enterprise involving significant quantities of 'date rape' drugs.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced each defendant to a total of 6 years of incarceration, declining to grant Downes credits or reduce the sentence based on potential immigration consequences.

The appellant appealed his convictions by judge alone on three charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine, MDMA, and ketamine.

The trial judge found that the Crown had proven the appellant had the requisite knowledge and control of the drugs found in an apartment.

The appellant challenged the credibility of police officers' testimony regarding surveillance observations and the trial judge's reliance on certain facts.

The appellate court found no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings and dismissed the appeal.

Zhi Xin Lin pleaded guilty to production and possession for trafficking of ketamine.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large-scale commercial operation, the harmful nature of ketamine, and the residential location of the illegal lab.

Mitigating factors included his first offender status, guilty plea, cooperation with police, remorse, and impending deportation.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 10-year sentence, applying credit for pre-sentence custody and minimal credit for time under house arrest due to lack of information on its impact.

A net sentence of 9 years and 4 months was imposed.

The accused was arrested following a police response to a call about an intoxicated passenger in a cab.

A search incident to arrest revealed the accused was in possession of 111 grams of Ketamine.

The Crown alleged possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused conceded possession of the substance but contested the trafficking allegation.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved the accused possessed the Ketamine for trafficking purposes.

The Crown relied on expert evidence regarding the quantity being consistent with trafficking.

The defence argued the absence of other indicia of trafficking left open the reasonable possibility of personal use.

The Crown sought to qualify a police officer to give opinion evidence regarding the methodology of drug trafficking, pricing, distribution, and street use of ketamine in a possession for trafficking case.

The defence challenged the officer's qualifications.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and White Burgess test for expert evidence admissibility, finding that the officer's training, experience with approximately 30 ketamine investigations, conversations with other officers and drug users, and prior testimony as a drug expert provided a sufficient foundation for the proposed opinion evidence.

The court admitted the evidence while excluding toxicology information regarding lethal dosing as beyond the officer's expertise.

The accused was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking in Methylone, Ketamine, and Cannabis.

An application to exclude evidence under the Charter was dismissed.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence, noting the commercial nature of the drug enterprise and the lack of significant mitigating factors.

A total sentence of 23 months incarceration was imposed, reduced to 8 months after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation with specific conditions, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused was arrested for suspected impaired driving and found in possession of 55 grams of ketamine, 0.2 grams of ketamine in a separate package with a straw, cash, and a cellular phone.

A search of his vehicle revealed additional drugs, scales, multiple cellular phones, and a bag of white powder.

The defence conceded possession of ketamine but contested whether it was possessed for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the quantity of the drug, expert evidence regarding typical consumption rates, the presence of scales and multiple phones, and the accused's financial circumstances.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding heavy personal use was not credible and that the only rational inference from the evidence was that the ketamine was possessed for trafficking purposes.

A 29-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to possession of 190 grams of ketamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of $470.00 in proceeds of crime.

The offences occurred in December 2013 when police executed a search warrant.

The court balanced aggravating factors (the dangerous nature of ketamine and trafficking for commercial gain) against significant mitigating factors (youthful offender with rehabilitation prospects, single father caring for a 10-year-old daughter, hard-working, guilty plea, clean bail record, and no criminal history).

The court imposed a 6-month jail sentence for the trafficking charge and an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 2 years probation for the proceeds charge, with strict conditions including house confinement for the first 6 months and a curfew thereafter.

The accused, a 34-year-old first offender with serious health issues including HIV and Hepatitis C, was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine, and possession of ketamine and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the accused sought a 9-month conditional sentence.

The court considered the accused's strict compliance with house arrest bail conditions for nearly three years as a significant mitigating factor.

The court imposed a 16-month conditional sentence to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation, finding this would satisfy the principles of denunciation and deterrence while promoting rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with possession of MDMA, ketamine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and with producing those substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police discovered a large-scale clandestine drug laboratory inside a residence containing approximately 150 kilograms of finished drugs and extensive manufacturing equipment in plain view.

The accused was found inside the residence and his personal documents were located there.

The court held that the pervasive presence of drugs, odour, and equipment established the accused’s knowledge of the operation and that his presence and conduct supported an inference of control sufficient for constructive possession for the purpose of trafficking.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the production process.

The accused was charged with production of MDMA and possession of Methamphetamine, Ketamine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking in connection with a clandestine Ecstasy lab.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance of the accused at the lab, his possession of a key, and notebooks found in his home containing chemical names, CAS numbers, and logos matching pill press dies found at the lab.

The accused testified and denied knowledge of the drug operation, offering alternative explanations for his notebook entries.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found that the only rational inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs and was a party to their production.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including MDMA, ketamine, and marihuana, as well as possession of proceeds of crime.

Police executing a search warrant found large quantities of drugs, packaging materials, scales, and currency, indicating mid‑level trafficking activity.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 4.5 years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court held that while denunciation and deterrence were primary objectives for drug trafficking offences, the offender’s lack of prior record, genuine remorse, significant rehabilitation, and strong community support justified restraint.

Applying the conditional sentencing framework in force at the time of the offences, the court imposed a community‑based conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The accused were arrested during a high-risk takedown following an undercover police operation targeting a ketamine drug transaction.

One accused was charged with trafficking and possession of marihuana, but the court found the Crown failed to prove his knowledge or involvement beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittals.

The other accused admitted to trafficking but brought a Charter application alleging police used excessive force during his arrest, including kicking him in the head while handcuffed.

The court found on a balance of probabilities that unknown officers subjected the accused to excessive and gratuitous force, breaching his s. 7 and s. 12 Charter rights.

Consequently, the charges against him were stayed pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

In a criminal sentencing decision following trial convictions under ss. 5(2) and 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the court addressed large-scale production and possession for the purpose of trafficking in MDMA, methamphetamine, and ketamine from a clandestine laboratory.

The evidence established a high-capacity operation with significant public-safety and health risks, including deceptive marketing of tablets containing highly addictive methamphetamine.

The court treated denunciation and general deterrence as paramount, relying on comparator jurisprudence and the seriousness of domestic synthetic-drug production.

Applying aggravating and mitigating factors individually, the court imposed lengthy penitentiary terms on all three offenders, with concurrent sentences on each count and ancillary DNA and firearms-prohibition orders.