marijuana

The parties separated after their four-year-old child ingested a small amount of a marijuana cookie left accessible by the father.

The mother unilaterally relocated with the child to Toronto and withheld contact.

Both parties sought primary care and sought to introduce surreptitious recordings of each other.

The court excluded the secret recordings, condemning the practice in family law.

The court ordered shared primary care on a 3-1-3 schedule proposed by the father, emphasizing the child's best interests and discouraging unilateral self-help measures.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or two years.

The court found that a four-year sentence was appropriate given the significant quantities of drugs involved.

However, the court granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, strict bail conditions, a s. 10(b) Charter breach regarding the right to counsel, and the harshness of serving a sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The final sentence imposed was three years in custody.

The accused was charged with second degree murder after brutally beating a 75-year-old woman on a walking trail.

The accused admitted to causing the victim's death but argued he lacked the requisite intent due to extreme intoxication from consuming magic mushrooms and marijuana.

The court rejected the defence of non-mental disorder automatism, finding no psychiatric evidence to support it.

The court concluded that the accused's coordinated actions before, during, and after the attack, along with the targeted and severe nature of the blows, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause bodily harm that he knew was likely to cause death and was reckless as to whether death ensued.

The accused was found guilty of second degree murder.

The offender was convicted of attempting to possess a firearm and transferring ammunition, and pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in marijuana.

The court found the offender was a mid-level marijuana dealer and was actively engaged in a business enterprise of supplying illegal firearms and ammunition for profit.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a global sentence of 4 years and 9 months, less 5 months credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, leaving 4 years and 4 months to serve.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drug.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the smell of 'freshly' burnt marijuana and the timing of the drug recognition evaluator's conclusion.

He also argued the trial judge improperly limited cross-examination and improperly questioned an officer about his criminal record.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's misstatements were minor, the limits on cross-examination were appropriate, and the brief reference to the criminal record was for a permissible purpose and did not affect the verdict.

The offender was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, MDMA, and marijuana.

The Crown sought a sentence of 3 to 3.5 years, while the defence sought 12 months less credit for pre-trial bail conditions.

The court found the offender's difficult childhood and successful business to be mitigating factors, and the commercial nature of the trafficking to be aggravating.

The court declined to give credit for the pre-trial curfew.

Emphasizing rehabilitation, the court sentenced the offender to 9 months imprisonment followed by 2 years probation, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown applied under the Civil Remedies Act for the civil forfeiture of a rural property, alleging it was used as an instrument of unlawful activity after police discovered 723 alleged marijuana plants on the premises.

The property owner opposed the application, arguing he had no knowledge of the grow operation and was a responsible owner.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the Crown failed to prove the seized plants were actually marijuana, as no Health Canada certificate was provided.

Furthermore, the court held that the owner met the burden of proving he was a responsible owner and that forfeiture would clearly not be in the interests of justice.

The appellant appealed a 54-month global sentence imposed following conviction for possession for purposes of trafficking methamphetamine, marijuana, and morphine, as well as simple possession of other controlled substances.

The appellant argued that the trial judge's reasons were inadequate, that the judge failed to consider relevant mitigating circumstances, improperly considered defence conduct as aggravating, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

The appellate court found the trial judge's paramount concerns of denunciation and deterrence were appropriate, that mitigating factors were properly considered, and that the sentence was fit given the appellant's extensive criminal record spanning over three decades with approximately eight prior convictions for possession for purpose of trafficking.

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

The accused were charged with possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and money laundering following the execution of search warrants at two condominiums.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession of large quantities of cocaine, marijuana, oxycodone, and psilocybin, as well as significant amounts of cash.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including keys, documents, and debt lists, overwhelmingly established that both accused were in possession of the narcotics and that the cash was derived from trafficking.

Both accused were found guilty on all counts.

The offender was convicted of possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

He absconded prior to sentencing.

The court sentenced him in absentia to a global term of 7 years imprisonment.

The court awarded 23 months of pre-sentence custody credit, including time spent in custody on subsequent charges, finding that custody was attributable to the initial charges.

A request for credit for strict bail conditions was denied due to a lack of evidence and the offender's absconding.

Joshua Lenhardt was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality and parity, and gave particular attention to the offender's aboriginal background under Gladue principles.

Aggravating factors included the commercial purpose of trafficking and the highly addictive nature of cocaine.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, a difficult childhood, rehabilitative efforts, stable employment, and family plans.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 12 months, comprising 6 months of house arrest and 6 months of curfew, to be served concurrently for all counts, along with a 10-year firearm prohibition and forfeiture orders.

The two accused were convicted of possessing loaded handguns, marijuana, and proceeds of crime.

One accused was also convicted of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought sentences of 4 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought much lower sentences, citing a Charter breach for delayed bail hearings.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of guns and drugs against the mitigating factors of good rehabilitation prospects and the Charter breach.

Both accused were sentenced to two years less a day in custody, followed by probation.

Adrian Duffus challenged the mandatory minimum sentencing provision in s. 6(3)(a)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) for importing a Schedule II substance (marijuana), arguing it violated s. 12 of the Charter as cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found that while the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate to Duffus's specific circumstances, it was grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios involving small amounts of marijuana imported for sharing, without financial gain, or by offenders with exceptional personal hardships.

Applying the Oakes test, the court declared the one-year mandatory minimum imprisonment for importing a Schedule II substance for trafficking unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

Duffus was subsequently sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for importing 5 kilograms of marijuana, considering mitigating factors.

The Crown brought a motion on a voir dire to qualify a police officer as an expert witness in drug trafficking.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana and a prohibited firearm.

The court considered the officer's 12 years of police experience, including two years on the drug squad, involvement in numerous drug investigations, surveillance, undercover buys, informant handling, and specialized training courses.

Applying the R. v. Mohan criteria, the court found the expert evidence relevant, necessary, and not subject to any exclusionary rule.

The officer was deemed properly qualified based on his extensive practical experience and formal training.

The application to admit the officer's expert testimony was granted.

Sam Tsega was charged with second-degree murder.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of Tsega's marijuana use and dealing to establish opportunity, motive, context, and witness credibility.

The defense argued inadmissibility due to lack of support for inferences and prejudicial effect outweighing probative value.

The court applied the Handy/L.B. framework, finding the evidence relevant and material to central issues, and while discreditable, its probative value significantly outweighed any minimal prejudice, especially in a judge-alone trial.

The evidence was deemed admissible.

The offender was convicted of two counts of trafficking marijuana.

He was found with approximately 10 kilograms of marijuana in his vehicle and half a kilogram at his home.

The court considered his prior record for the same offence and that he was on probation at the time.

Mitigating factors included his genuine remorse, his bipolar disorder diagnosis, and the stringent bail conditions he endured.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 months in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with possession of prohibited firearms and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered the items in a condominium unit following a flood.

The Crown alleged the accused constructively possessed the items because he rented the unit as a stash house.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove actual or constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as the accused's only connection to the unit was a single fingerprint on a glass dish in a locked bedroom he could not access, and several other individuals had keys or access to the unit.

All charges were dismissed.

The self-represented accused brought pretrial applications seeking a stay of proceedings for alleged violations of his s. 11(b) and s. 8 Charter rights.

He argued that the 39-month delay from his arrest to the application date was unreasonable and that the search warrant for his home was based on insufficient information from confidential informants.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the delay was largely attributable to the accused's own actions, including changing counsel multiple times, and that the Information to Obtain the search warrant provided sufficient grounds for the issuing justice to authorize the search.

The mother applied for sole custody of the parties' two children, retroactive child support, and retroactive spousal support.

The father also sought sole custody, arguing the mother relied too heavily on his parents for childcare.

The court found the mother had been the primary caregiver and had adequate parenting skills, while the father had a history of domestic violence and had underpaid child support.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, but allowed the father unsupervised access, finding his recreational marijuana use did not pose a risk to the children.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive child support of $6,053.00 and a lump sum retroactive spousal support payment of $7,500.00.

The offender was convicted of possession of a large quantity of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered approximately 29 pounds in the trunk of his vehicle during a highway stop.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, an intermittent custodial sentence followed by probation, emphasizing the offender’s role as a single parent and the passage of time since prior offences.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12–15 months given the offender’s prior trafficking convictions and the substantial value of the drugs.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives and that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for a repeat offender involved with a large quantity of drugs.

A custodial sentence of nine months’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation was imposed.