Kim Schofield

The defendant was charged with seven counts arising from the execution of Cannabis Act search warrants at two residential properties on November 3, 2021.

The charges included unlawful possession of cannabis for purposes of distribution and sale at both properties, and unlicensed possession of firearms and a prohibited device at the rural property.

The defendant was found present at the rural property when police executed the warrant.

The Crown relied primarily on circumstantial evidence and DNA evidence to establish possession.

The court found that while the Crown established the presence of substantial quantities of cannabis and firearms at both locations, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed these items.

The court acquitted on all counts, finding reasonable doubts regarding the defendant's knowledge and control over the items, the handling of evidence by police, and the possibility of indirect DNA transfer.

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 sought leave to cross-examine Detective Constable William Crawford, the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) affidavit used to secure search warrants under the Cannabis Act.

The accused was charged with three counts under the Cannabis Act and six counts under the Criminal Code related to unlicensed cannabis possession and firearms offences.

The court considered five proposed areas of cross-examination: hemp checks conducted, ability to differentiate cannabis from hemp plants, interpretation of monitored conversations, failure to include certain surveillance dates, and alleged failures to be full and frank in specific paragraphs of the ITO.

The court granted leave for cross-examination regarding hemp checks and the basis for belief about plant identification, but denied leave for the other three areas.

The appellant, Rapinder Bains, appealed convictions for drug-related offences, arguing that the trial judge erred by applying a less onerous standard for entrapment.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge’s approach, holding that it was open to the trial judge to infer from the Agreed Statement of Facts that the officer had the requisite subjective belief to proceed.

The appeal and the sentence appeal were both dismissed.

This decision clarifies the meaning of "export" under the Cannabis Act in the context of possession for the purpose of exporting cannabis.

The Court held that "export" means sending cannabis or industrial hemp from Canada to another country and does not require proof of commercial value or any additional purpose beyond the physical act of exportation.

The ruling emphasizes that the Act and its regulations permit exportation only for medical, scientific, or industrial hemp purposes, and that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the possession was intended to cause the cannabis to leave Canada.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence of two years less a day imposed on the respondent for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The respondent had discharged the firearm during a shootout in a public parking lot.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by prioritizing rehabilitation over denunciation and deterrence, and that the sentence was demonstrably unfit.

However, the majority dismissed the appeal and declined to incarcerate the respondent, citing his significant rehabilitative progress and the time already served under the conditional sentence.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police found a large quantity of drugs, a loaded gun, and $40,000 in cash in a hidden compartment in the trunk of his car.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the hidden compartment or the contraband, suggesting that his former intimate partner or her associates planted the items to frame him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unbelievable and found that the only reasonably plausible inference on the totality of the evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

Duy Tam Nguyen was convicted of multiple drug trafficking and firearm possession offences after police found significant amounts of cocaine, methamphetamine, and two firearms in a "stash house" he operated.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record and the sophistication of the operation, and mitigating factors such as rehabilitative prospects and pre-sentence custody conditions.

The judge applied the principle of totality to determine appropriate concurrent and consecutive sentences for the various counts, ultimately imposing a total sentence of seven years and eight months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders for DNA sample and a lifetime firearm prohibition.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and crack for the purpose of trafficking, and trafficking.

The case involved a Charter application to exclude evidence (drugs and shipment receipt) due to a s. 8 Charter violation by police for failing to file a timely Report to Justice.

The court found a s. 8 violation but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, balancing the Grant factors, noting the police conduct was negligent but not serious, and the impact on the defendant was minimal.

On the merits, the court found the defendant guilty of trafficking, concluding that he was the person who dropped off the package and knew its contents, or was wilfully blind, based on circumstantial evidence including fingerprints and suspicious shipping practices.

The defendant, Thomas Nsiah, was charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court found that a strip search conducted by police at the detachment violated the defendant's section 8 Charter rights, as it was unreasonable and unauthorized, lacking proper grounds or procedure.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the drug evidence obtained from the vehicle.

In the alternative, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge and control of the concealed drugs, given the lack of forensic evidence linking him to the hidden compartment and the vehicle's non-ownership by the defendant.

The Crown alleged Christian Collins breached his Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) by committing an armed robbery shortly after the CSO was finalized.

The court found overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including DNA and the purchase of walkie-talkies used in the robbery, connecting Collins to the crime.

The court determined that Collins's previously established "complete and successful reformation," which was a premise for the CSO, was erroneous.

Given the serious nature of the breach (armed robbery) and the underlying offences (drug trafficking, firearm possession) which endangered public safety, the court concluded that the CSO was no longer appropriate.

The CSO was terminated, and Collins was committed to custody for the remainder of his sentence.

The applicant was arrested for domestic assault.

Police subsequently discovered evidence of drug trafficking, leading to a search warrant for his residence and vehicle, where drugs, cash, and a firearm were found.

The applicant brought preliminary motions alleging multiple Charter breaches, including unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) and denial of the right to counsel (s. 10(b)), seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) and to quash the search warrant.

The court found breaches of s. 8 (warrantless entry into the vehicle and residence) and s. 10(b) (delay in facilitating access to counsel).

However, the court held that the search warrant remained valid after excising unconstitutionally obtained information and that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Duy Tam Nguyen, was charged with multiple drug and firearm offences following his arrest with a co-accused.

Police found methamphetamine, cash, and keys to a rooming house unit on Nguyen.

A subsequent search of the unit revealed more methamphetamine, cocaine, firearms, drug trafficking paraphernalia, and Nguyen's identification documents.

The primary issues at trial were whether circumstantial evidence proved Nguyen's possession of the drugs and firearms and if the cash was proceeds of crime.

A secondary issue was the admissibility and weight of the co-accused's exculpatory statements.

The court found Nguyen guilty of possession of methamphetamine for trafficking (on person and in unit), possession of non-restricted and restricted firearms, and possession of cocaine for trafficking.

He was found not guilty of possession of proceeds of crime due to insufficient evidence.

Terrell Burke-Whittaker pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm after discharging it towards a busy highway during a funeral viewing.

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

The court considered aggravating factors, including the discharge of the firearm in a public place, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's sincere remorse, positive rehabilitation efforts while on bail (starting a business, acceptance into fire academy), and strong community support.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation in firearms cases, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the normal penitentiary range.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by three years of probation, along with a DNA order and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

Police executed a search warrant using a "hard entry" at the defendant's home, seizing cocaine, phenacetin, and cash.

The defendant applied to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure due to hard entry) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found a serious s. 8 breach due to the officer's lack of understanding of the knock-and-announce rule and arbitrary decision-making.

The s. 10(b) breach was not found.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court excluded the evidence, leading to the defendant's acquittal on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused, Ruxsan Arulrajah, was charged with robbery.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility of an inculpatory utterance made by the accused to police.

The court found the utterance inadmissible on two grounds: it was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, and it was obtained in violation of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights (right to counsel) due to both informational and implementational breaches.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

As the Crown chose to call no further evidence after the ruling, the charge was dismissed, resulting in an acquittal for the accused.

The accused, a young Black man, was stopped by police while driving and subsequently subjected to a pat-down search, arrest, and strip search, leading to the discovery of a loaded handgun and drugs.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging racial profiling and arbitrary detention.

The court found that the traffic stop was a pretext for a drug investigation and that racial profiling played a significant role in the suspect selection, rendering the detention and subsequent searches unlawful.

Finding multiple breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 15 of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

Prior to sentencing, the court found two Charter violations regarding a wiretap intercept of a solicitor-client call and a breach of the right to counsel upon arrest, but dismissed a challenge to a strip search.

At sentencing, the court weighed the serious aggravating factors of the offences against exceptional mitigating factors, including the accused's complete reformation while on bail, his successful music career, his community service mentoring at-risk youth, and the Charter breaches.

The court concluded that a conditional sentence of two years less a day was appropriate to address denunciation and deterrence while supporting the accused's rehabilitation.

The accused brothers were involved in an altercation at a McDonald's where one displayed a firearm.

They fled and were subsequently arrested by police near an alleyway where two loaded handguns were found under a parked van.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 7, 9, and 10, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of the firearms.

The court found a breach of s. 9 for failing to bring the accused before a justice within 24 hours, and a breach of one accused's s. 10(b) rights due to delays in contacting his counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant test, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and refused a stay of proceedings.

On the merits, one accused was acquitted of assault due to self-defence, and the other was acquitted of pointing a firearm.

Both were found guilty of careless storage and possession of the firearms based on circumstantial evidence, with one also convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.

The accused, Jun Peng Wu, pleaded guilty to possession of 60 kilograms of MDMA for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The drugs and pill presses were inherited from his late father and had been stored in his residence for nine years, with the accused having a general, but unacted upon, intention to sell them.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to five years' imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court, considering the unique circumstances of passive possession, the accused's belief in the drugs' diminished potency, his first offender status, and significant rehabilitation efforts, imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The sentence included strict community conditions, a 10-year and lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order, finding that denunciation and deterrence could be achieved without incarceration given the specific facts.