Nyron Dwyer

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and multiple firearm offences after police observed him drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana in a parking lot and saw him hide a shoulder bag under a vehicle.

Police discovered a loaded restricted handgun with a defaced serial number in the bag and 4.13 grams of crack cocaine in the accused’s pocket.

The accused admitted intending to sell the cocaine but denied knowledge of the firearm, claiming he was temporarily holding the bag for a cousin.

The court rejected the testimony of both the accused and the cousin as implausible and untruthful, finding collusion and inconsistencies in their evidence.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the firearm and exercised control over it.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a 20-year-old woman with a severe developmental disability.

The accused admitted to having consensual sexual intercourse with the complainant, resulting in her pregnancy.

The core issues were whether the complainant had the capacity to consent to sexual intercourse and, if not, whether the accused had an honest but mistaken belief in her capacity to consent.

The court heard expert evidence indicating the complainant functioned cognitively at the level of a three to five-year-old child.

The court found that the complainant lacked the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of sexual intercourse, including the risks of pregnancy and disease.

Furthermore, the court rejected the accused's defence of honest but mistaken belief, finding that he was willfully blind to her obvious developmental limitations and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The offender was convicted of trafficking in cocaine under s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime under s. 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following an undercover police purchase.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of six months while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender’s youth, lack of prior record, supportive family, and employment prospects as mitigating factors, but emphasized the seriousness of crack cocaine trafficking and the risk of re‑offending given the offender’s ongoing drug use.

Applying the principles governing conditional sentences from Supreme Court authority, the court found that community safety concerns and the need for denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence.

A short period of incarceration followed by probation was imposed.

The accused was charged with trafficking cocaine contrary to s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime contrary to ss. 354(1)(a) and 355(b) of the Criminal Code.

The evidence consisted largely of surveillance observations and the recovery of police buy money from the accused following an undercover drug purchase arranged through intermediaries.

The defence argued that the case relied on circumstantial evidence and proposed alternative inferences inconsistent with guilt.

The court rejected those alternatives as speculative and held that circumstantial evidence must be assessed according to whether guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, not by the strict Hodge’s rule formulation.

Finding that the only logical inference from the evidence was that the accused supplied the cocaine and received the buy money, the court entered convictions on both counts.