Possession for purpose of trafficking

The appellant was convicted of two counts of possession of controlled substances (cocaine and crystal methamphetamine) for the purpose of trafficking and one count of failing to comply with a release order.

He received a global sentence of two years imprisonment after credit for pre-sentence custody.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of alleged Charter violations relating to searches and access to counsel, and challenged the sentence on grounds of inadequate consideration of systemic discrimination and a procedurally unfair forfeiture order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no Charter breaches.

The Court admitted fresh evidence on the sentence appeal but dismissed it on the merits, except for setting aside the forfeiture order for the funds seized.

The accused was charged with eight counts relating to possession and trafficking of controlled substances (cocaine, ketamine, MDMA, and LSD) and exporting controlled substances.

The accused admitted to purchasing a bulk quantity of drugs with 15 friends for consumption at electronic dance music festivals.

The accused stored the drugs at his residence, divided them into individual portions for his friends, and attempted to ship some to Miami.

The court found the accused guilty of four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of possession for the purpose of exporting, but acquitted on the two counts of exporting, finding the actus reus incomplete as the drugs never left Canada.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s.5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of money exceeding $5,000 derived from an indictable offence contrary to s.355(a) of the Criminal Code.

Following a trial conducted as a blended hearing, the court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant based on confidential informant information and surveillance observations.

The defendant was found to be in possession of all cocaine found in his vehicle and residence for the purpose of trafficking.

However, the Crown failed to prove possession of more than $5,000 derived from drug trafficking.

The defendant was convicted on count one and convicted of the lesser included offence on count two.

The appellant was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 following a trial by judge and jury, and was sentenced to five and one-half years' imprisonment.

She appealed her conviction on four grounds: that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that character could not be considered; that the trial judge erred in allowing the jury to consider smaller quantities of a different drug; that the trial judge failed to provide a corrective instruction after the Crown's closing address; and that the trial judge erred in his instruction regarding the mistake of fact defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal and also dismissed the leave to appeal sentence application.

The appellant appealed a three-year penitentiary sentence imposed for two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking involving approximately 1.2 kilograms of cocaine and over 800 grams of methamphetamine.

The Crown had sought six years while the defence sought a two-year-less-a-day conditional sentence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erroneously relied on other seized items (cash, cocaine press, ammunition, and other drugs) to determine his level of involvement, contending these items had not been proven as separate offences.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding the trial judge properly considered facts from the agreed statement of facts to assess the appellant's level of involvement and imposed a fit sentence considering all circumstances, including mitigating factors and the appellant's genuine remorse.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (682.37 grams of 98% pure cocaine) and possession of property (cash of $30,733.00) obtained by crime.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less one day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by 12 months of probation, finding that despite the serious nature of the offences and aggravating factors, the offender's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, rehabilitative efforts, difficult personal background, and positive character references warranted a community-based sentence.

The court emphasized that the offender was more than his error and that proportionality, individualization, and the unique circumstances of the case justified departure from the typical sentencing range.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no breach of sections 8 and 9, but found a breach of section 10(b) regarding the failure to inform the accused of his right to counsel.

However, the court concluded that the evidence was not obtained in a manner causally connected to the Charter breach and therefore section 24(2) did not apply.

The court found the accused guilty of the offence based on evidence establishing possession of a large quantity of cocaine (approximately 731.77 grams including packaging) that was ingested and surgically removed, with expert evidence establishing the quantity was inconsistent with personal use and consistent with trafficking.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, emphasizing the large quantity of fentanyl (409.60 grams), the accused's prior drug trafficking conviction, and the fact that the offences were committed while serving a conditional sentence.

The defence sought 6 years imprisonment, arguing that the accused was a runner motivated by addiction rather than profit, had no criminal record for violence, and had demonstrated rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a sentence of 7.5 years, taking into account the accused's vulnerable background, Indigenous heritage, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and evidence of remorse and rehabilitation efforts, while recognizing the serious dangers of fentanyl trafficking.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and sentenced to eight years in jail.

He appealed the conviction, raising three grounds: the trial judge erred by not applying Vetrovec principles to a witness's evidence and failing to provide sufficient reasons for relying on it, and that the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a Vetrovec caution is not mandatory in judge-alone trials and the trial judge was aware of the witness's credibility issues, relying only on corroborated aspects of his testimony.

The court also found the verdict reasonable, as the circumstantial evidence, viewed holistically, amply supported the conclusion that the appellant knowingly possessed the package.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of producing marijuana without authorization and two counts of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed both his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's assessment of mens rea, party liability, or credibility.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding the original sentence demonstrably unfit due to the duration of house arrest and electronic monitoring, and set aside the probation order.

The appellant was convicted of possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in allowing a police officer to give an opinion on the ultimate issue of trafficking and in instructing the jury not to speculate about a missing witness.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in permitting the expert opinion on the ultimate issue, as it was not necessary and risked the jury accepting it without critical consideration of the evidence, particularly the absence of evidence on dosages and consumption rates.

The court declined to apply the curative proviso, finding the error was not harmless.

The conviction was set aside, and the court requested submissions on substituting a conviction for simple possession and an appropriate sentence.

The appellant, convicted of importing fentanyl and possession for the purpose of trafficking, appealed his convictions and sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the conviction appeal, affirming the trial judge's application of wilful blindness to both the nature and origin of the controlled substance.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the 15-year global sentence, finding the comparison of fentanyl to heroin for sentencing purposes to be apt, and emphasizing the principles of denunciation and general deterrence given the drug's extreme danger and quantity.

The victim surcharge was set aside.

The appellant, Richard Hillier, appealed convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the police negligently destroyed crucial evidence (a fabric pouch and drug packaging) found in a police cruiser, impairing the appellant's right to make full answer and defence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The trial judge erred in dismissing the application for exclusion of evidence.

The Court excluded the evidence found in the cruiser, setting aside three convictions and substituting a conviction for simple possession for one count where the purpose of possession was not proven.

Zephaniah Bogle pleaded guilty to possession of a restricted firearm and possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the combination of drugs and a loaded firearm, and mitigating factors such as his early guilty plea, lack of prior record, youth, positive pre-sentence report, and rehabilitative efforts while on stringent bail conditions.

The Crown sought a 3-year sentence, while the defence sought 2 years less a day.

The judge imposed a total sentence of 27 months (2 years for the firearm, 3 months consecutive for cocaine), less 222 days for pre-trial custody and house arrest credit, resulting in 1 year and 233 days of remaining custody, followed by 2 years of probation.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police found 114 grams of cocaine in six bags, a digital scale, and $1,390 in cash at an apartment in St. Catharines, Ontario.

The defendant had three prior convictions for drug-related offences, including two previous trafficking convictions.

The Crown sought a 42-month penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for 16-18 months.

The court imposed a 30-month custodial sentence, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation considerations and the defendant's 22 months of house arrest pending trial.

The defence subsequently sought a conditional sentence based on pandemic concerns and the recent Sharma decision, but the court declined to alter its original sentence.

The accused was charged with trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following his arrest on August 8, 2018.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for delay.

Although the net delay of 15 months and 24 days fell below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court cases, the court found this was a rare and clear case warranting a stay.

The defence demonstrated meaningful steps to expedite proceedings while the Crown caused significant delays through unavailability and serious non-disclosure of search warrant materials for ten months.

The court granted the stay, finding the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The applicant, Shawn Tedder, faced charges of trafficking and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He brought several pre-trial motions, including an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, an application to quash indictment counts under s. 601(1) of the Criminal Code alleging unconstitutionality of s. 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), various constitutional challenges to the medical marihuana regulatory schemes (MMAR, MMPR, ACMPR) and CDSA ss. 4, 5, and 6, and an application under s. 8 of the Charter for exclusion of evidence.

All of Tedder's applications were dismissed.

The court found no s. 11(b) violation, affirmed the validity of CDSA s. 5 offences despite regulatory changes, and rejected constitutional challenges due to an insufficient evidentiary record and established legal principles distinguishing medical users from commercial suppliers.

Alexander Just was found guilty of two counts of production of cannabis marijuana and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large-scale commercial nature of the operation, the use of foreign workers, and the significant street value of the seized cannabis.

Mitigating factors included his status as a first offender, strong community support, good character, and rehabilitation prospects.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the defence proposed 12 months.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years in penitentiary, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and declined a probation order.

The Crown charged two accused jointly with two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, with the first accused facing an additional count.

At a preliminary inquiry, both accused contested committal, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge and control.

The court applied the test from R v Arcuri, examining circumstantial evidence including extensive police surveillance of hand-to-hand transactions, large quantities of cash and drugs found in a locked apartment, drug paraphernalia, and documentary evidence linking both accused to the premises.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused to trial on the joint possession counts and the first accused on the additional count.

The defendant, Abdallah Mohamed, sought to quash his committal for trial on two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge and control.

The Superior Court reviewed the preliminary inquiry judge's decision, applying the limited weighing of circumstantial evidence test from *Charenski*.

The court found that the preliminary inquiry judge correctly applied the legal principles and that the combination of the defendant's presence, the unzipped satchel's location, and witness testimony suggesting drug dealing was sufficient to support an inference of knowledge and control.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.