Martin Tooke

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, emphasizing the large quantity of fentanyl (409.60 grams), the accused's prior drug trafficking conviction, and the fact that the offences were committed while serving a conditional sentence.

The defence sought 6 years imprisonment, arguing that the accused was a runner motivated by addiction rather than profit, had no criminal record for violence, and had demonstrated rehabilitative potential.

The court imposed a sentence of 7.5 years, taking into account the accused's vulnerable background, Indigenous heritage, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and evidence of remorse and rehabilitation efforts, while recognizing the serious dangers of fentanyl trafficking.

This decision concerns a four-day judge-alone trial in which Tremar Ellis was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained from the proceeds of crime.

The police executed a search warrant at a residence and found Ellis in a basement bedroom with cocaine and cash.

After considering the evidence, including testimony from Ellis and Laura Robinson, the court found reasonable doubt as to Ellis’s knowledge and control of the drugs and cash, concluding that they likely belonged to Tyler Robinson.

Ellis was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control, operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(b), 11(e), and seeking remedies under sections 24(1) and 24(2).

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving and that the right to counsel was not violated.

However, the court found that the accused's detention for approximately 36 hours was arbitrary and unjustified under section 9 of the Charter.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy, finding that the cumulative effect of the detention duration and aggravating circumstances, combined with the absence of any explanation for the detention despite the accused's parents being present and willing to take him home, undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault entered by the Ontario Court of Justice arising from an altercation with a common-law partner.

The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the credibility analysis required by R. v. W.(D.) and failed to provide sufficient reasons as required by R. v. Sheppard.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge erred by failing to analyze the accused’s denial of a key allegation and by providing insufficient reasons explaining why the evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Because credibility was central and the reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review, the conviction could not stand.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.