C. Noordegraaf

The offender, a 57-year-old man, was convicted of three counts of trafficking cocaine and one count of simple possession after selling small quantities to undercover officers from his pizza shop.

The Crown sought a 22-month global sentence, while the defence sought 9 to 12 months.

The court imposed a 22-month global sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The court also granted enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and an additional 126 days of credit under Downes for the 687 days the offender spent on strict bail conditions wearing an ankle monitor, resulting in a net sentence of 10 months.

The applicant was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police observed him engaging in suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions from his rental vehicle.

Following his arrest, police towed the vehicle to the station and conducted a warrantless search, discovering 5.5 grams of crack cocaine hidden in the visor.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights, arguing the police lacked reasonable grounds for arrest and that the search was unlawful.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officers had objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest based on their observations and experience, and that the subsequent vehicle search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The applicant was arrested for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police observed him engaging in suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions from his rental vehicle.

A subsequent warrantless search of the vehicle at the police station yielded 5.5 grams of crack cocaine.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The court further noted that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was convicted of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9 to 12 months followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 18 to 24 months.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the factors in s. 10 of the CDSA.

Emphasizing the accused’s lack of criminal record, compliance with bail, supportive community ties, and low risk of reoffending, the court concluded that a community-based sentence was appropriate.

A conditional sentence of 20 months with house arrest followed by curfew conditions was imposed.

The offender was sentenced following conviction for possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Police seized significant quantities of crack cocaine and powder cocaine along with cash from a residence associated with the offender, indicating a mid‑level commercial trafficking operation.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of five to six years, while the defence requested a sentence of two and a half to three and a half years with substantial credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The court rejected arguments that the trafficking was driven primarily by addiction and declined to grant the full credit sought for time spent on judicial interim release.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender’s youth and the jump principle, the court imposed a four‑year penitentiary sentence with credits applied, along with forfeiture, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging infringements of their rights under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 12 during a police vehicle take down and subsequent strip searches.

The police had relied on confidential informant information and surveillance to arrest the accused for drug trafficking.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrests and the search warrant.

While the court held that one of the accused's section 8 rights was infringed because she was left completely naked for five minutes during a strip search at the police station, the court declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police conduct was not in bad faith and the evidence was crucial to the prosecution.

The applicant brought an application under s. 490(9) of the Criminal Code seeking the return of a vehicle seized by police and detained pursuant to a detention order pending the completion of criminal proceedings.

The vehicle had been seized as offence-related property in connection with charges involving production and trafficking of marihuana under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court held that the detention order remained valid and that the vehicle could be required in future forfeiture proceedings under s. 16 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act if a conviction were obtained.

Because the detention period had not expired and the applicant failed to establish that the property would not be required for an ongoing or potential proceeding, the statutory test under s. 490(9) was not met.

The application for return of the vehicle was therefore dismissed.