Hafeez Amarshi

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his residence, arguing that the search warrant was invalid due to deliberate misrepresentations and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that the affiant deliberately misled the issuing justice regarding the confidential informant's criminal history, motivation, and the corroborative police observations.

After excising the inaccurate information, the court concluded that the remaining ITO was not sufficiently reliable to support the warrant, resulting in a breach of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the serious nature of the police misconduct.

The offender was convicted of four counts of trafficking in cocaine.

At sentencing, he brought a Charter application challenging the constitutionality of s. 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which eliminated conditional sentences for offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years or life, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the provision did not result in grossly disproportionate sentences and was not overbroad.

The offender was sentenced to 90 days of intermittent imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

The offender was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police seized 188.72 grams of powder cocaine and 20.75 grams of crack cocaine from his apartment.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3 to 3.5 years, while the defence argued for a non-custodial sentence, citing exceptional circumstances and case law on addict traffickers.

The court rejected the defence's argument, finding no evidence the offender was an addict and concluding he was a commercial trafficker.

However, emphasizing rehabilitation for a youthful first offender, the court sentenced him to two years less a day in reformatory and two years of probation.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking 0.77 grams of crack cocaine.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 13 months, while the defence submitted that a 5-month sentence was appropriate.

The court considered the accused's guilty plea, remorse, and lack of aggravating factors as mitigating circumstances.

The accused was sentenced to 5 months in custody, less 3 days of pre-sentence credit, followed by 2 years of probation and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The offender was found guilty of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of two and a half years' incarceration, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's mental illness, lack of prior drug record, and the delay in bringing the matter to trial.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by one year of probation, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition.

The accused brought a motion under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for alleged breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from charge to the anticipated trial was approximately 31 months, with about 19 months attributed to institutional or mixed institutional delay.

Applying the Morin framework, the court considered the reasons for delay and whether actual or inferred prejudice had been established.

The accused alleged stress, bail restrictions, housing issues, and inability to travel, but the court found these harms were not caused by the delay or were self-inflicted due to failure to seek bail variations.

Given the seriousness of the charges and absence of demonstrated prejudice, the court concluded the delay did not justify a stay.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police officers attended a known problem house to check on tenants and observed the accused flee into a bathroom upon seeing them.

The officers detained the accused and conducted a pat-down search, finding crack cocaine in his pocket.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found the investigative detention was lawful but the search violated s. 8 based on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) because the officers acted in good faith according to the law as it was understood at the time.

Sentencing for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime under s.354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender had a significant prior criminal record including related drug trafficking offences and had committed the offence shortly after release from a previous custodial sentence.

Despite strong aggravating factors and the Crown seeking a sentence of 2½ to 3 years, the court gave weight to credible evidence of sustained rehabilitation during more than two years on strict bail conditions, including stable employment and family support.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation and community service.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude the drugs on the basis of alleged breaches of ss. 8 and 9.

Police observed a known drug user behaving suspiciously and subsequently watched him enter the accused’s vehicle.

During the encounter an officer observed a baggie of suspected crack cocaine in plain view in the vehicle door pocket, leading to the accused’s arrest and a search that revealed additional drugs.

The court rejected the accused’s version of events alleging an unlawful strip-style search and fabrication by police, finding the officers credible and concluding that the detention, arrest, and search were lawful.

The Charter application was dismissed and the drugs were admitted into evidence.

The accused brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings for breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The charges involved four counts of trafficking in cocaine.

The total delay from charge to trial was approximately three years and four months, including about fourteen months of institutional delay in the Superior Court.

The court found that a nine‑month delay after an adjourned trial date resulted from systemic scheduling failures despite a judicial direction that the trial be set within three months.

The accused established significant prejudice arising from restrictive bail conditions requiring separation from his family and the inability to pursue employment or education opportunities.

Balancing the relevant Morin factors, the court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including MDMA, ketamine, and marihuana, as well as possession of proceeds of crime.

Police executing a search warrant found large quantities of drugs, packaging materials, scales, and currency, indicating mid‑level trafficking activity.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 4.5 years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court held that while denunciation and deterrence were primary objectives for drug trafficking offences, the offender’s lack of prior record, genuine remorse, significant rehabilitation, and strong community support justified restraint.

Applying the conditional sentencing framework in force at the time of the offences, the court imposed a community‑based conditional sentence of imprisonment.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking in crack cocaine, possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, the court considered an appropriate sentence for a street-level transaction involving a very small quantity of drugs.

The offender had a prior criminal record but no previous drug convictions and had reportedly overcome earlier heroin addiction through treatment programs.

The court weighed aggravating factors including trafficking in a vulnerable neighbourhood and the harmful nature of crack cocaine against mitigating factors such as the small quantity involved, the absence of recent criminal activity, and evidence of rehabilitation.

Applying the sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity under the Criminal Code, the court concluded that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

A conditional sentence of 12 months with a period of house arrest followed by probation was imposed.