Melina Macchia

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession, purchase, or receipt of unmarked cigarettes for the purpose of sale contrary to Section 29(1) of the Tobacco Act.

The Crown sought a fine of $29,819.00 plus 15 months probation.

The defendant sought a suspended sentence with two years probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, finding exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the statutory minimum fine of $89,959.25 under Section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court considered the defendant's financial hardship, unemployment due to vision loss, administrative penalties totaling $161,310.26, and the fact that the defendant was a delivery person rather than the primary actor in the scheme.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and refusal to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from events on December 25, 2016.

The accused was found unconscious in a motor vehicle displaying signs of impairment.

The Crown alleged impairment by alcohol.

The defence presented medical evidence of significant head trauma, concussion, and a broken nose sustained during an altercation at a party.

The court found that while impairment was evident, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol was the cause, as the symptoms were consistent with traumatic brain injury.

On the refusal charge, the court found the accused did not refuse on purpose but rather was unable to provide an adequate sample due to his injuries.

The court acquitted on both charges.

The defendant was convicted after trial of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered 169 pounds of marijuana in a van that the defendant was driving after he breached a police roadblock.

The Crown sought a sentence of nine to twelve months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a ninety-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a ninety-day intermittent sentence with three years' probation, community service, and an enhanced victim surcharge, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and the defendant's personal circumstances, including his long-term permanent resident status and family ties in Canada.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 committed between March and September 2015 while employed at a dental office.

She defrauded her employer of $63,000 through fraudulent transactions and casino cash advances.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment; the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence with three years probation.

The court imposed a three-year custodial sentence, finding that the breach of trust, significant financial loss, extensive criminal history involving similar offences, and post-employment campaign of harassment and intimidation against the victim constituted aggravating circumstances that outweighed mitigating factors including guilty plea, mental health treatment, and partial restitution efforts.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (1.59 grams for $240 on March 23, 2016).

The Crown and defence agreed the accused was a drug addict but disagreed on whether he was an "addict-trafficker." The court found the accused was an addict-trafficker who sold small quantities of cocaine to feed his own addiction rather than for profit.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years' probation, finding this an exceptional case where a non-custodial sentence was appropriate given the accused's strong rehabilitative efforts, stable employment, family support, and successful completion of methadone treatment with clean urine samples.

The court also imposed a 10-year firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the apartment was the appellant's residence and that he had knowledge of and control over the cocaine found in the freezer.

On appeal, the appellant contended that the verdict was unreasonable and that one could reasonably infer the apartment was his wife's home and that she alone had knowledge of the cocaine.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding it was reasonable for the trial judge to conclude that the evidence as a whole excluded all reasonable alternatives to guilt.

Five appellants convicted of drug-related offences appealed their convictions, challenging the application judge's admission of evidence obtained pursuant to wiretap authorizations under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellants argued that the application judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by failing to adequately recognize the impact of prior police misconduct and by not giving appropriate effect to findings of serious carelessness in the affidavits.

Ba Tuan Tran also appealed his sentence of 15 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and the sentence appeal, finding the application judge's analysis fair, balanced, and correct.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempt to obstruct justice, arguing that the trial judge erred in applying the standard of reasonable doubt and that the evidence did not support a finding of intent to obstruct justice.

The trial judge had found that the appellant drove a person to a remote property north of Parry Sound to familiarize him with the location so that a false confession to a marijuana cultivation charge would be credible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's findings were reasonable on the evidence and that once the trial judge accepted the Crown's evidence regarding the trip to the property, it was open to conclude that the appellant had the requisite intent.

Summary conviction appeal from a conviction for failing to provide a breath sample under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the police failed to make the Approved Screening Device demand “forthwith” because several minutes elapsed before the demand was issued.

The appeal court held that the trial judge correctly applied the governing jurisprudence and reasonably concluded that the demand, made approximately seven minutes after detention when the device arrived, satisfied the “forthwith” requirement.

Although the trial judge identified technical breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, the breaches did not justify exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The conviction was upheld.