Marina Elias

The appellant, a pharmacist, was convicted of trafficking in fentanyl and sentenced to 13 years in prison.

She appealed her convictions, arguing that her s. 8 Charter rights were violated when police obtained information about her pharmacy from the regulatory college without a warrant, and that the search warrant for her home lacked sufficient grounds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the regulatory information and sufficient grounds for the warrant.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the sentence to 8 years due to the extraordinary collateral consequences of a rare genetic disease affecting both the appellant and her young daughter.

Cory Trunks applied under the Criminal Code for access to $167,000 in seized cash to cover his legal expenses for defence against charges including drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that Trunks had other available means.

The court found that while Trunks had an interest in the funds, he failed to demonstrate that he had no other assets or means, specifically noting that he had been granted Legal Aid.

The application was dismissed, as the availability of state-funded legal assistance meant Trunks was not in the narrow category of accused persons needing access to potentially forfeited funds.

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking offences after police found cocaine during a search incident to arrest.

He appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in finding no section 10(b) Charter breach when police delayed his access to counsel for 3.5 hours while preparing a search warrant for his residence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the delay was justified by officer and public safety concerns due to credible information that the appellant possessed a long firearm.

The appellants were convicted of trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine following a lengthy police surveillance operation dubbed 'Project Odyssey'.

On appeal, they argued the trial judge erred in his handling of a confidential informant privilege application, in refusing to stay proceedings for alleged police misconduct, and in rendering unreasonable verdicts based on circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the in camera, ex parte procedure used for the privilege claim, upholding the trial judge's factual findings regarding police conduct, and concluding the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly supported the convictions.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime.

On appeal, he challenged the issuance of the search warrant that resulted in the charges against him.

The Court of Appeal found that the reviewing judge's decision was deserving of deference and that, on the basis of the record before her, the issuing justice could properly issue the warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

Craig Savory was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, involving approximately $300,000.00 worth of cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of five to eight years, while the defence argued for approximately two years, citing exceptional circumstances and Savory's rehabilitative efforts.

The court considered Savory's personal background, including his family support, employment, and lack of substance abuse issues, as well as his previous minor criminal record (which was given no weight).

Mitigating factors included strong family support, compliance with bail conditions, full-time employment, and no evidence of broader involvement in the drug world beyond the immediate offence.

Aggravating factors included the presence of his children in the car where the drugs were concealed, the difficulty police had in finding the secret compartment, the absence of a guilty plea, and the societal impact of drug trafficking.

Applying the principles of sentencing under Section 718 of the Criminal Code, and noting that Savory's role was limited to transportation, storage, and distribution without evidence of profit-sharing, the court imposed a sentence of six years' incarceration.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime based on an agreed statement of facts.

He subsequently brought a motion to stay the charges on the basis of entrapment.

An undercover officer, with minimal training and no reasonable suspicion regarding the target, called a phone number obtained from a confidential source and immediately requested to purchase a specific quantity of crack cocaine.

The accused agreed and supplied the drugs.

The court found that the officer provided the opportunity to commit the crime without reasonable suspicion about the person or the phone number, and that the bona fide inquiry exception did not apply due to insufficient corroboration of the tip.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.