marijuana

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 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 United States of America sought the extradition of the respondent to face charges of conspiracy to possess and distribute marijuana and MDMA.

The Attorney General of Canada applied for an order committing the respondent into custody to await the Minister's decision on surrender.

The court found that the respondent was the person sought and that the Record of the Case contained sufficient admissible evidence of conduct that, had it occurred in Canada, would justify committal for trial on the corresponding Canadian offence of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The committal order was granted.

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 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.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for post-forfeiture relief under s. 20 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act regarding a property jointly owned with her husband.

The property was forfeited after her husband pleaded guilty to marijuana production and trafficking charges, while charges against the appellant were withdrawn in exchange for her agreement not to make submissions at the forfeiture proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly concluded the appellant was fully complicit in the offences and therefore precluded from relief under s. 20(4)(a).

The appellant was convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

He appealed his convictions, arguing that evidence obtained during a search of his stash house should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter and that the search warrant was unlawfully obtained.

He also appealed his sentence of six years' imprisonment, a $500,000 fine, and delayed parole eligibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the Charter breaches were minor and the warrant was validly issued.

The sentence appeal was allowed in part: the delayed parole eligibility order was removed for the proceeds of crime conviction, and the fine was reduced to $75,000 due to a lack of evidence regarding the appellant's ability to pay.

The accused, a black male passenger in a vehicle, was stopped by police for a seatbelt violation.

The officer pushed the accused back into the vehicle, smelled unburned marijuana, and subsequently pulled him out to effect an arrest, leading to a physical altercation.

The accused was charged with drug offences and assaulting a peace officer.

The court found the officer's actions constituted an arbitrary detention, an unreasonable search, and involved excessive force, raising concerns of racial profiling.

The court excluded the drug evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and found the accused not guilty of resisting arrest.