Misbah Haque

The decision concerns the conviction of Ja’Coy Stevenson for possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and several firearm offences.

The court found that Stevenson and Boris Kljujic were running a drug trafficking operation out of a Thunder Bay apartment, based on circumstantial evidence including the presence of large quantities of drugs, cash, drug paraphernalia, and a loaded firearm.

The court rejected the defence that Stevenson was merely a user, finding the only reasonable inference was that he was a trafficker with constructive possession of the drugs and firearm.

The court sentenced Zongxiu Jiang to 18 months' incarceration for cultivating cannabis in a non-dwelling house, contrary to s. 12(6)(a) of the Cannabis Act.

The decision reviews the facts, the parties' positions, sentencing principles, and the range of sentences for large-scale cannabis operations.

The court found that, despite mitigating factors such as a guilty plea and family hardship, the gravity and scale of the commercial operation, and Jiang's role as principal, required a custodial sentence.

The court declined to impose a conditional sentence, emphasizing the paramount importance of deterrence and denunciation in such cases, and held that collateral immigration consequences could not justify a more lenient sentence.

The accused, Elmi Ibrahim and Samatar Hamadu, brought an application to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for premises at 2646 Victoria Ave East, Thunder Bay.

They argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and contained misrepresentations regarding the primary residence of a key subject, 'Easy'.

The court, applying the Garofoli process, found that the redacted ITO, when read as a whole and considering the affiant's experience and corroborated confidential informant information, provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the location.

The court dismissed the application to quash the warrant, ruling the evidence admissible at trial.

The accused, Richard Gurhan, was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of Percocet, possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $5000, and possession of a loaded and prohibited or restricted firearm.

This decision outlines the reasons for sentencing.

The court considered the serious nature of the offences, particularly drug trafficking and firearm possession, and the impact on the community, while also weighing the offender's strong prospects for rehabilitation as a youthful, first-time offender with no prior criminal record and a supportive background.

A global sentence of four and a half years imprisonment was imposed, reduced to an effective four years after Downes credit for restrictive bail conditions.

The applicants, charged with drug and firearm offences, sought an order under the Criminal Code and Charter to access $186,269 seized during their arrest to pay for reasonable legal expenses.

The Crown opposed, arguing a third party had an interest in the funds and that the applicants had not been refused Legal Aid.

The court granted the application, finding the applicants established a possessory interest, demonstrated no other person had a valid claim (as the co-accused had absconded), and that applying for Legal Aid would be futile given the circumstances and complexity of the case.

The court also found the proposed legal fees reasonable for senior counsel.

The accused, Brian Kelneric, was charged with multiple drug and proceeds of crime offences.

The trial focused on establishing possession of cocaine, oxycodone, and cash found in an apartment and a rental vehicle, based on circumstantial evidence.

The court applied principles from R. v. Villaroman regarding circumstantial evidence and R. v. Morelli regarding constructive possession.

The judge found that the only rational inference from the accused's hiding from police, the proximity of drugs and paraphernalia, and his connection to a vehicle containing drugs and cash, was his knowledge and control of the items.

The accused was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of oxycodone, and possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $5,000.

Richard Gurhan was charged with multiple criminal offences including careless storage of a firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a restricted weapon with ammunition, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of oxycodone and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The charges stemmed from the execution of search warrants at a residence and a vehicle (Hyundai Kona).

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on surveillance, the discovery of drugs, a firearm, and cash in the vehicle, and the accused's possession of the vehicle keys.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding that the only rational inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control of the illicit items.

The accused, Brian Kelneric, brought an application seeking permission to attend his trial remotely due to asserted financial hardship.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, primarily on the basis that section 715.233 of the Criminal Code requires the consent of both the prosecutor and the accused for an accused to appear by videoconference at a trial for an indictable offence, and the Crown had withheld consent.

Alternatively, the court found that even if it had discretion, the evidence provided regarding the accused's financial hardship was insufficient, lacking specific details and corroboration beyond a lawyer's general assertion.

The court emphasized the seriousness of the charges and the accused's long-standing knowledge of the trial date.

Fatah Kulmiye, jointly charged with drug trafficking and firearm offences, brought an application for standing to challenge a CDSA search warrant executed at a third-party residence.

Kulmiye was found in the residence during the search, along with drugs and cash, but was a Toronto resident with no personal belongings at the property and no authority to regulate access.

The court applied the factors for determining a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Charter, as outlined in R. v. Edwards and R. v. El-Azrak.

The court found that Kulmiye, as a transient guest, did not establish a subjective or objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched premises, distinguishing his situation from cases involving a direct interest in a property used for a joint enterprise.

Consequently, the application for standing was dismissed.

This was a pretrial application by the accused, Brian Kelneric, to exclude evidence obtained during his arrest and subsequent searches, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

Kelneric was charged with five offences, including unlawful dwelling and drug trafficking.

The court found that Kelneric did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the apartment where he was found hiding, thus the searches of his person and the apartment were lawful, including a plain view search and a search conducted with the tenant's consent.

The court also determined that even if some evidence were excised, sufficient grounds remained for the search warrant of his rental vehicle.

While a technical breach of his section 10(b) right to counsel occurred when an officer questioned him after he requested a lawyer, no information was obtained, and the delay in facilitating counsel was primarily due to Kelneric's request for medical attention.

Applying the Grant factors, the court dismissed the application to exclude the evidence, finding that society's interest in the adjudication on the merits outweighed any negligible impact on the accused's Charter rights.

The accused, Sheldon Wynter, faced multiple drug trafficking and related charges.

A voir dire was held to determine alleged Charter breaches, specifically concerning a strip search (s. 8), right to counsel (s. 10(b)), and misleading evidence at a bail hearing (s. 7 and 11(d)).

The court found the strip search lawful and reasonable, and the initial s. 10(b) breach (due to medical emergency) did not warrant exclusion of evidence.

However, a significant s. 7 and 11(d) breach occurred due to the Crown's failure to disclose corrected drug weight information at the bail hearing, which misled the Justice of the Peace.

Consequently, the evidence of fentanyl and cocaine seized between February 21st and 25th was excluded.

Other charges will proceed to trial.

The applicant, Wally Williams, sought to exclude drug evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Following a car accident in a remote, cold location, police offered Williams and his companions a ride, conditional on a "safety" pat-down search.

During Williams' search, a pill bottle was discovered, leading to his arrest for drug possession.

A subsequent search of his backpack revealed additional illegal drugs and a "debt book," resulting in charges for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that the initial "safety" search was not reasonably necessary as there was no imminent threat, and any consent given was limited to a search for weapons, not contraband.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the evidence, obtained through serious Charter breaches, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application was allowed, and all seized drug evidence was excluded.