Melissa Insanic

The decision concerns a bail application by Gurpreet Singh, who is sought for extradition to the United States on charges related to large-scale cocaine trafficking.

Singh proposed a strict house arrest bail plan with GPS monitoring and multiple sureties.

The court found the plan had strengths but ultimately denied bail due to a high risk of flight, citing Singh’s international connections, travel history, and lack of credible financial disclosure.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the York Regional Police to include a withdrawn criminal charge in his Police Vulnerable Sector Check.

The Divisional Court set aside the decision, finding that the police breached procedural fairness by relying on undisclosed occurrence reports without giving the applicant an opportunity to respond.

The court also found the decision unreasonable for failing to justify how the applicant met the exceptional criteria for disclosing non-conviction information.

The matter was remitted for reconsideration under the newly enacted Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015.

The York Regional Police and the Crown brought a certiorari application to quash five defence subpoenas issued for a preliminary hearing.

The subpoenas sought to compel police officers to attend for discovery and to produce documents related to the policy of not audio recording booking areas.

The court held that while discovery is a legitimate ancillary purpose of a preliminary hearing, subpoenas cannot be used as a disguised attempt to obtain disclosure, circumventing the Stinchcombe/O’Connor regime.

The court quashed the subpoenas as they pertained to the production of documents but ordered that four police witnesses attend for discovery purposes, subject to the preliminary hearing justice's discretion to limit unreasonable discovery.

The appellant was convicted of seven drug charges and sentenced to three years' imprisonment after police found a substantial quantity of drugs hidden in a garage where he was present.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in assessing the circumstantial evidence of possession and that the sentence was excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the test for circumstantial evidence and reasonably inferred the appellant exercised primary control over the drugs for distribution.

The sentence was upheld as fit given the nature and quantity of the drugs.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown proceeded largely through filed 540(7) materials.

The court applied the test for committal, which requires determining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonably instructed jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case involved circumstantial evidence and required careful analysis of inferences that could be properly drawn from the evidence presented.

At a preliminary inquiry into charges of trafficking in cocaine arising from Project Keystorm, the Crown sought to commit the accused to stand trial on two counts: trafficking on March 19, 2015, and trafficking on April 9, 2015.

The accused conceded the evidence for the April 9 charge but contested the March 19 charge.

The central dispute concerned the admissibility and interpretation of an audio probe recording of a conversation between the accused and a co-conspirator in a vehicle.

The court found that the parties had agreed to the accuracy of the transcript and that the conversation, combined with subsequent intercepted communications, provided sufficient evidence for committal on both counts.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing his pre-trial motions alleging violations of his section 8 Charter rights.

The appellant challenged the search of a shipping container by customs officials, the issuance of a wiretap authorization, and the granting of search warrants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the customs search was authorized under the Customs Act, the wiretap authorization met the investigative necessity requirement, and the conduct of the Justice of the Peace in issuing the search warrants did not create a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and one count of failure to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment while the defence sought four years.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years, taking into account aggravating factors including the quantity of cocaine, the ongoing commercial enterprise, a prior conviction for similar offences, and breach of bail conditions, balanced against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, genuine remorse, youth, difficult childhood circumstances, and support from family.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime after police observed him discard a package containing crack cocaine while fleeing.

The central issue was whether the accused possessed the drugs and whether cash found on him was proceeds of crime.

The court accepted the police officer’s evidence that he saw the accused drop the package and later recovered it from a garden below the porch.

The accused’s explanation regarding the origin of the cash and his possession of two cellphones was rejected as not credible.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possessed cash obtained through trafficking.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing he was deprived of the opportunity to effectively challenge the police conduct in obtaining a search warrant because the trial judge did not give the Crown an opportunity to show the warrant was properly granted on the unredacted information.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the case was controlled by R. v. Blake.

The defence had not requested a review of the unredacted information or judicial summaries, nor challenged the confidential informant claim at trial.