Marijuana production

The applicant sought to exclude statements made to police, arguing they were involuntary and obtained in breach of Charter rights due to a failure to advise of the right to remain silent and to counsel.

The court found that while the rights were read, the police failed to maintain an adequate contemporaneous record of the accused's utterances regarding the marijuana plants and the offer to show the light switch.

This failure raised a reasonable doubt as to the voluntariness of the statements, leading to their exclusion.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine the number of marijuana plants for sentencing purposes after convictions for production and possession for trafficking.

The Crown sought to engage a mandatory minimum sentence based on a plant count exceeding 500.

The defence presented expert statistical evidence challenging the adequacy of the police's sampling methodology.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the number of marijuana plants exceeded 500 due to the arbitrary sampling process, thus precluding reliance on the mandatory minimum.

However, the court accepted that it was a substantial marijuana grow operation for general sentencing purposes.

The defendant pleaded guilty to production of a Schedule II substance contrary to section 7(2)(b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the CDSA.

Following a trial of an issue (Gardiner hearing), the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant produced and possessed marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The defendant was an authorized medical marijuana producer who significantly exceeded his authorized production limits.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence that he was engaged in a two-stage operation for personal consumption, finding instead that the scale of the operation, the packaging of marijuana in one-pound quantities with brand names, and the defendant's lack of credibility supported an inference of trafficking.

The court sentenced the defendant to five months concurrent imprisonment on both counts, imposed a 109 order for ten years, ordered a DNA sample, and placed the defendant on probation for two years with conditions prohibiting marijuana production.

The accused, Hai Thi Pham, was convicted of producing marijuana and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

She challenged the two and three-year mandatory minimum sentences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) as violating s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found both mandatory minimums grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios involving licensed production and mistakes of law, and thus unconstitutional under s. 12 and not saved by s. 1.

Consequently, the court imposed a 10-month custodial sentence, followed by 18 months probation, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and forfeiture of grow-op equipment, considering aggravating factors (large commercial operation, public safety hazard, property damage) and mitigating factors (first offender, family, mental health issues, sentencing delay).

The accused, Joseph Patrick Boomhower, Beverly A. Boomhower, and Travis Joseph Boomhower, faced charges related to marijuana production, possession for trafficking, simple possession, improper firearms storage, and breach of recognizance.

The court found Travis Joseph Boomhower not guilty on all firearms-related charges, accepting his testimony that he believed the firearms had been removed from the home as per his bail conditions.

Joseph Patrick Boomhower and Beverly A. Boomhower were found guilty of improper storage of one 10-gauge shotgun, joint possession of approximately 22 lbs of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of 330 grams of marijuana found in their home.

The court rejected Travis's uncorroborated testimony regarding the marijuana operation as a short-term arrangement with a cousin, finding it inconsistent with the evidence.

Arthur John Blackwood was convicted of production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record for similar offences, and mitigating factors such as cooperation with police and remorse.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 402 days (after credit for pre-trial custody) and ordered forfeiture of offence-related property, including the net proceeds from the sale of his home, finding the forfeiture not disproportionate given the nature and gravity of the offences and his criminal record.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for offences related to a marijuana grow operation discovered in the basement of a residential property at 50 Ravenscrest Drive in Toronto.

Arin Hwang was charged with producing marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of dried marijuana found in a suitcase, and theft of electricity.

Van Da Do was charged with producing marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity.

The court acquitted Do of all charges due to unreliable eyewitness identification evidence and insufficient circumstantial evidence linking him to the premises.

Hwang was convicted of simple possession of the dried marijuana found in the suitcase but acquitted of the remaining charges, as the Crown failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that he exercised the requisite control over the basement grow operation.

Arthur John Blackwood was charged with multiple offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code.

He pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (Count 3) and was deemed to have pleaded guilty to production of marijuana (Count 1).

The trial proceeded on charges of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking (Count 2), possession of ammunition while prohibited (Count 5), and possession of proceeds of crime (Count 6).

The court found Blackwood guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking based on his statements, lack of conventional income, and the large quantity of marijuana and plants.

He was found not guilty of possession of proceeds of crime due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was found guilty of possession of ammunition, as his ownership of the residence and knowledge of the ammunition constituted "control" despite his argument that he did not bring it into the house.

The applicant, Jeremy Boulton, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentencing provision in s. 7(2)(b)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) under s. 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Boulton, convicted of producing 117 marijuana plants for trafficking, argued the six-month mandatory minimum was grossly disproportionate for reasonably foreseeable hypothetical offenders, specifically a "generous university student" sharing six plants.

The court dismissed the "over the licence limit" hypothetical but accepted the "generous university student" scenario, finding that a six-month mandatory jail sentence for such an offender would be grossly disproportionate and violate s. 12 of the Charter.

The court concluded that s. 7(2)(b)(i) of the CDSA violates s. 12 of the Charter, with further submissions on s. 1 justification to follow.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A Gardiner hearing was held to resolve factual disputes regarding the extent of the grow operation.

The offender acknowledged growing 250 marijuana plants in his residence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 3 years' probation, with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA profiling order.

The sentencing considered the offender's chronic health conditions, medical authorization for cannabis use, lack of commercial motive, prior 1998 conviction for the same offence, and 14-year crime-free period since that conviction.

The accused were convicted of production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a trial.

The Crown operated two large-scale hydroponic marijuana grow operations in Toronto and Mississauga, containing approximately 4,961 and 6,758 plants respectively, with an estimated annual production value in the millions of dollars.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 5 years on the first accused and 18 months on the second accused, finding that deterrence and denunciation were the predominant sentencing objectives.

The court declined to impose a restitution order but ordered forfeiture of cash seized from the first accused.

DNA orders and weapons prohibition orders were also imposed.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana, possession of marijuana over 3 kilograms for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of hydro under $5,000 following a police raid on a grow operation.

The defendant admitted possessing 14.9 kilograms of wet marijuana in his van but claimed it was refuse destined for disposal.

The court found the defendant not guilty of production and theft charges, but guilty of simple possession.

However, the defendant held a valid Health Canada authorization to possess up to 3,960 grams of dry marijuana for medical purposes.

Upon agreement of counsel regarding the dry weight conversion of the wet marijuana, the possession charge was dismissed as the quantity fell within the defendant's authorized limit.

The accused was charged with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and theft of hydroelectricity contrary to the Criminal Code.

He was arrested at a residential property where a substantial marijuana grow operation was discovered.

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence of the grow operation, arguing the search was illegal.

The Crown raised a threshold issue of standing, contending the accused could not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched.

The court found the accused had not established on a balance of probabilities that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property and therefore lacked standing to challenge the search.

The Crown sought to qualify a York Regional Police detective as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence regarding marijuana production, distribution, trafficking, pricing, and related matters.

The defence objected on grounds of bias, arguing that the proposed expert had conducted surveillance prior to the search warrants and was from the same police unit as the principal investigators.

The trial judge applied the four-part Mohan test and the Abbey framework, finding that while the expert met the threshold requirements, certain portions of the report were inadmissible due to bias concerns and case-specific opinions that could usurp the trier of fact's role.

The accused pleaded guilty to marijuana production and fraudulent consumption of electricity.

The Crown sought 18 months of incarceration, while the accused sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with strict conditions, including 12 months of house arrest and electronic monitoring.

The court found this was a rare case warranting a conditional sentence despite the sophistication of the grow operation, the accused's prior record, and the aggravating features including a downed live electrical hydro line.

Significant mitigating factors included the accused's cognitive and emotional challenges stemming from a serious assault ten years prior, his willingness to take responsibility and warn police of dangers, and his motivation to earn money for family court litigation.

At a preliminary hearing, the court considered whether there was sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial on various charges related to marijuana production and trafficking conspiracies.

The court discharged two accused (Tuan Vu and Thu Tran) on conspiracy charges, finding that while they may have facilitated or furthered the commission of crimes, the evidence was insufficient to establish they were parties to the formation of the conspiracy agreement itself.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. J.F., which restricts party liability in conspiracy cases to conduct that aids or abets the formation of the agreement.

The court also discharged one accused (Cong Nguyen) on a count involving a warehouse conspiracy, finding that merely selling equipment with knowledge it would be used for illegal purposes does not constitute conspiracy.

Two accused were committed to trial on trafficking and conspiracy counts.

The accused was charged with marijuana production and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

At trial, the defence sought leave to cross-examine the affiant on the search warrant to challenge its sub-facial validity.

The defence proposed questioning on five points: the specifics of observations made in April 2013, the tip from a confidential human source, the significance of Hydro readings, the significance of FLIR observations, and the absence of confirming observations on the day of arrest.

The court applied the test from R. v. Pires and found that the defence had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination on four of the five points would assist in determining the material issue.

However, the court granted leave to cross-examine on the FLIR observation point, finding a reasonable likelihood that such cross-examination would be relevant to the material issue of whether there was a basis for the issuing justice to be satisfied there were reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The defendant was convicted of production of cannabis, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm with ammunition, and related drug and weapons offences following a search warrant execution at a residential property where a sophisticated hydroponic marijuana grow operation was discovered.

The sentencing judgment addresses three key legal issues: whether the mandatory minimum sentence for possession of a loaded firearm remains in effect following the Smickle decision declaring it unconstitutional; whether the combination of drug production and firearms constitutes an aggravating factor; and whether sentences should be imposed concurrently or consecutively.

The court imposed a global sentence of 43 months imprisonment, treating the offences as concurrent given their interconnected nature within a single criminal enterprise.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of the defendant's townhouse under section 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the defendant's guilty plea to production of marijuana.

The defendant operated a sophisticated grow operation with 303 plants in the residential property.

The court found the property was offence-related property but applied the proportionality test under section 19.1(3).

The court determined that full forfeiture would be disproportionate given the defendant's lack of criminal record, sole operation of the grow-op, and absence of organized crime involvement.

The court ordered partial forfeiture of 50 percent of the remaining equity after accounting for the defendant's father's interest in the property (the mortgage amount paid to prevent foreclosure).

The accused were charged with possession of cannabis marijuana and production of cannabis marijuana following a search of their home.

The accused brought a section 24(2) Charter application to exclude evidence obtained during the search.

The court found that the search warrant was issued without sufficient grounds.

The officer relied on an anonymous tip from Crime Stoppers, verification of the accused's residence, and minimal marijuana residue found in a garbage pull.

The court concluded that objectively, there were insufficient grounds to believe the accused were growing marijuana.

The warrant should not have been issued, constituting a violation of the accused's section 8 Charter rights.

Despite the officer's professional conduct and the seriousness of marijuana grow operations generally, the court excluded the evidence, considering the modest amount of marijuana found was clearly for personal use and the intrusive nature of a home search.