Undercover operation

This is an appeal from a decision rejecting an application for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment in a child luring case.

The appellant argued the undercover officer offered an opportunity to commit the offence without reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the officer's initial ambiguous response ("yea sometimes ..... im 14 tho") did not constitute an "opportunity" to commit the offence, as the appellant himself initiated and steered the conversation towards sexually explicit topics, thereby committing the luring offence.

The court emphasized that the entrapment doctrine is reserved for the clearest cases of uncondonable state conduct.

The accused, Abel Hailu, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through alleged breaches of his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights, specifically concerning police takeover of the complainant's phone for text messaging, his arrest, strip search, and search of his residence and electronic devices.

The court found that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages with the complainant, who was a stranger and alleged victim of a sexual assault and kidnapping.

Therefore, no s. 8 breach occurred regarding the text messages, and the subsequent arrest was lawful.

The court also found no s. 8 breaches regarding the strip search or the search of his residence and electronic devices, as these were conducted reasonably and based on valid warrants.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The appellant, a police officer, appealed convictions for various criminal offences, arguing that he was entrapped by police.

The trial judge had previously found him guilty of 11 counts, staying 3 on entrapment grounds, and convicting on 8.

The appeal specifically challenged 5 of the remaining 8 convictions, alleging errors in the trial judge's analysis of both the "opportunity" and "inducement" branches of the entrapment test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's application of entrapment law, including her assessment of police conduct and the appellant's independent actions in committing the offences.

The accused, Jeff McIntosh, was found guilty of communicating with a person believed to be under 18 for sexual purposes (luring), obtaining sexual services of a person under 18, and obstructing a peace officer by providing a false name.

The court rejected the accused's defence that an individual named "Sean Williams" was responsible for the communications, finding his testimony unbelievable and fabricated.

The judge concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who sent the incriminating text messages and believed the recipient was 15 years old.

The accused, Sean Lypaczewski, pleaded guilty to communicating with a person believed to be underage for sexual purposes, possessing child pornography, and making child pornography.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the accused's position as a teacher and the high moral blameworthiness, and mitigating factors, such as genuine remorse, no prior criminal record, and significant rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, concurrent on all counts, followed by two years of probation with conditions, a DNA order, a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance, and a 10-year prohibition on employment/volunteering with minors and internet use restrictions.

The applicant, Elijah Hall, pleaded guilty to three counts of selling fentanyl and cocaine.

He sought a stay of these charges based on entrapment, arguing that the initial drug transaction was initiated by an undercover police officer without reasonable suspicion.

The Crown conceded the lack of reasonable suspicion for the first transaction but argued that this did not taint subsequent transactions.

The court, applying the principles of entrapment, found that the lack of reasonable suspicion at the outset did taint the subsequent transactions, distinguishing the case from R. v. Williams where firearm charges were not stayed.

The court followed R. v. Gambin, concluding that the subsequent transactions were "fruit poisoned by the tree of the first transaction." The application for a stay was allowed, and the three counts were stayed.

The appellant, Stephen Tello, appealed his convictions for conspiracy to import cocaine, trafficking cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime, and his 15-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals.

The court found no errors in the trial judge's instructions on multiple counts, the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule, or the PGP messages.

The court also refused to allow a new Charter issue regarding the PGP messages to be raised on appeal, finding the decision not to raise it at trial was tactical and no miscarriage of justice would result.

The sentence was deemed fit, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale drug offences.

The defendant, Zachary Collins, was found guilty of 11 counts related to drug and firearm offenses.

The defence brought an entrapment application concerning the firearm charge (Count 11), arguing that an undercover police officer induced the commission of the offence, going beyond merely providing an opportunity.

The court applied the two-branch test for entrapment from R. v. Mack and R. v. Ahmad.

The court found that while the police had reasonable suspicion, their conduct did not amount to inducement.

Despite the officer's persistence in inquiring about firearms, the defendant consistently indicated a willingness to procure them and initiated contact regarding the firearm transaction on October 1.

The court concluded that the police merely provided an opportunity, and the defendant chose to follow through.

The entrapment application was dismissed.

A jury found the accused guilty of child luring and making sexually explicit material available to a child, involving communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl.

The court considered the circumstances of the offences, the accused's background (first offender, difficult childhood, mental health issues, low risk to reoffend, significant collateral consequences), and the parties' sentencing positions.

The Crown sought 30 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 14 months.

The court rejected the Crown's proposed sentencing range of three to five years for these offences, aligning with the view that a new range has not yet been definitively established post-Friesen.

It also found that a conditional sentence was not appropriate given the gravity of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence, despite mitigating factors.

The appellant appealed his conviction under s. 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code for agreeing by telecommunication to commit sexual interference with a person believed to be under 16.

The appeal raised two grounds: whether the trial judge erred in finding an agreement by failing to consider inconsistent inferences (actus reus), and whether the mens rea for the offence requires an intent to actually carry out the underlying sexual offence, beyond the intent to enter into the agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding of a sufficiently detailed agreement and clarifying that the mens rea only requires the intent to enter into the agreement, aligning the offence with other inchoate child protection provisions.

Richard Aguilar appealed his convictions for child luring and communicating for sexual services, and his sentence.

The convictions stemmed from text message conversations with an undercover officer believed to be a 14-year-old girl, part of 'Project Raphael'.

Aguilar alleged errors in the trial judge's findings regarding the offences and rejection of his innocent explanations.

He also argued the sentence was unfit, lacked parity, and did not adequately consider his health or sentencing delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, no error in credibility findings, and no reversal of the burden of proof.

The court also found the sentence fit and that the principle of parity was not disregarded.

This is an appeal of convictions for child luring, arrangement by telecommunication to commit a sexual offence against a child, and obtaining sexual services for consideration from a minor, arising from a police sting operation.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's findings on cell phone tower data, arguing it created reasonable doubt about his identity, and sought to introduce fresh expert evidence.

He also contended that the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Morrison, which clarified the mens rea for child luring requires subjective belief in the victim's age, entitled him to a new trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment of the cell phone data was reasonable and supported by evidence, and the fresh evidence lacked due diligence and cogency.

The court further held that the trial judge's finding of subjective belief in the victims' age, based on the totality of the evidence, complied with the Morrison standard, thus no new trial was warranted.

Pezhman Saberi pleaded guilty to child luring under s. 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought the mandatory minimum penalty (MMP) of one year incarceration.

Saberi challenged the MMP under s. 172.1(2)(a) as a violation of s. 12 of the Charter, arguing it was grossly disproportionate.

The court found that a fit and proportionate sentence, considering Saberi's circumstances, guilty plea, and severe immigration consequences (deportation if sentence is 6 months or more), was 6 months less one day.

The court declared the MMP of one year unconstitutional as applied to Saberi, finding it to be cruel and unusual punishment that would outrage Canadian standards of decency.

Saberi was sentenced to 6 months less one day incarceration (with credit for pre-trial custody) followed by 18 months probation and various ancillary orders.

This appeal arose from convictions for child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor, stemming from Project Raphael, an undercover police investigation targeting demand for juvenile sexual services.

The appellant, Temitope Dare, appealed his convictions on two grounds: that the trial judge erred in jury instructions regarding the mental element of belief (linking it to reading text messages) and that the trial judge erred in dismissing his entrapment application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both grounds, finding that the jury instructions, when read holistically, were not misleading regarding the requirement of belief, and rejecting the entrapment argument based on reasons provided in a related case.

This is an appeal from conviction and sentence.

The appellant, Muhammad Abbas Jaffer, was convicted of child luring and communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor, stemming from an undercover police operation (Project Raphael).

He appealed on grounds of entrapment, arguing both opportunity-based and inducement-based entrapment, and that his sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding that the police operation did not constitute entrapment and that the trial judge's sentence was fit, adequately considering aggravating and mitigating factors.

The accused, Robert Stack, brought a Charter challenge to a search warrant issued for his Samsung tablet, alleging misleading statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and overreaching in the request to search cloud-based storage.

The charges against him included communicating with a person under 16 for sexual assault and interference, arising from an undercover police operation on the Grindr app.

The court found that while some statements in the ITO were misleading and were excised, they were not deliberately so.

The court also found that the request to search cloud storage was not overreaching given common technological practices.

Ultimately, the court upheld the warrant, concluding that there were reasonable and probable grounds for its issuance and that the police conduct did not subvert the pre-authorization process.

Richard Aguilar was found guilty after trial for three child-luring related offences.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The Crown sought a global custodial sentence of 2 years less a day, while the Defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months of custody, along with probation and ancillary orders, balancing sentencing objectives, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial sentences.

The defendant, C.S., brought a motion to recuse the assigned Crown counsel, alleging her involvement in the drafting of a racially charged undercover advertisement used in the investigation, which formed the basis of a potential abuse of process application.

The court found that newly disclosed police notes suggested the Crown's involvement in the investigative planning, making her a material and necessary witness.

Given the unreliability of the police officer's testimony regarding the meeting, the court determined that the proper administration of justice required the Crown to be called as a witness, thus meeting the stringent preconditions for recusal.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of text messages extracted from the accused's cell phone during a first-degree murder trial.

The defence argued the texts were irrelevant and constituted impermissible disposition evidence.

The Crown sought to admit them to corroborate the credibility and reliability of statements made by the accused to undercover officers, particularly regarding his lifestyle and interests.

The court found the majority of the texts relevant for supporting the officers' testimony, concluding their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect.

However, the court excluded texts referring to violent consensual sex, masturbation, and a nude photograph, deeming them either too prejudicial or irrelevant.

Arian Faroughi, convicted of communicating with persons believed to be underage for sexual purposes, brought an application to stay the charges due to police entrapment and a violation of his section 7 Charter rights.

The applicant argued that police inducement occurred through persistent texting, exploitation of his nervousness, and the use of a phone number previously associated with other escort ads.

The Crown contended there was no inducement and the applicant was a willing participant.

The court found that the police were acting under a bona fide inquiry and did not induce the applicant, applying the objective test from R. v. Mack.

The court determined that an average person in the applicant's position would not have been induced, and the police's oversight regarding the phone number was harmless and not a deliberate act of entrapment.

The section 7 disclosure argument was also dismissed.