K. Yeh

The accused, Adam Luangphasi and Alexander Le, were tried on multiple counts including conspiracy to traffic, import, and produce cocaine, as well as participating in a criminal organization and possessing proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted communications, surveillance, and expert evidence decoding drug jargon.

Applying the Carter framework for co-conspirator hearsay, the court found both accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine from Guyana.

Luangphasi was also found guilty of a separate conspiracy to import cocaine using a private plane.

Both accused were acquitted of the criminal organization charges due to a lack of proven structure and continuity, and acquitted of the carpet importation and production conspiracies.

Luangphasi was acquitted of possessing proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought judicial directions regarding execution of a search warrant for a seized cell phone where communications between the accused and his lawyer might be present.

Evidence indicated frequent contact between the accused’s phone and the lawyer’s phone number, raising a realistic risk that solicitor-client privileged communications could be contained on the device.

Applying the principles from Lavallee, Rackel & Heintz v. Canada (Attorney General), the court held that precautions must be taken to avoid inadvertent disclosure of privileged material to the state.

The court ordered that the phone’s contents be copied by an independent expert and first provided to defence counsel to determine whether privilege would be asserted.

If privilege were claimed, the material would remain sealed with the court pending judicial determination.

The accused applied for disclosure of investigative materials held by the Toronto Police Service Professional Standards Unit relating to investigations of two individuals connected to a large-scale drug investigation known as Project Gladiator.

The Crown argued the records constituted third‑party records requiring an O’Connor application, while the defence asserted they formed part of the fruits of the investigation subject to Stinchcombe disclosure.

The court found the investigations of the two individuals were intertwined with the criminal investigation of the accused and were conducted as part of the same joint police investigation.

Because the materials could assist the defence, including supporting alternate suspect theories, they constituted first‑party disclosure.

The court ordered disclosure under the Stinchcombe regime.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana and with trafficking offences arising from a police wiretap investigation known as Project Gladiator.

The defence brought a Charter application challenging a Highway Traffic Act stop used to identify the accused as the driver involved in a suspected drug transaction.

The court held the stop did not violate ss. 7, 8, 9, or 10 of the Charter and that, in any event, the identity evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

On the merits, the Crown relied largely on circumstantial evidence and surveillance to prove that the accused transported drugs and participated in a conspiracy with two other individuals.

The court found the circumstances highly suspicious but concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that drugs were actually exchanged, that the substance was cocaine or marijuana, or that the accused had the required knowledge for conspiracy to traffic in the specific drugs alleged.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.