Mitchell Witteveen

The applicant sought a remedy for alleged violations of her Charter rights, arguing that search warrants for her vehicle and home should be invalidated because they were based partly on information obtained through searches that violated her co-accused's Charter rights.

The applicant alternatively argued she had her own reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone and phone number that were the subject of the impugned searches.

The court ruled on the standing issue only, finding that the applicant lacked standing to attack the underlying warrants.

The applicant could not assert her co-accused's Charter rights, and she failed to establish her own reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone data.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 70 months, exceeding the presumptive 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

However, the court found that the applicant failed to comply with procedural requirements by not filing the application within the prescribed timeframe and not seeking leave to bring the application.

The court also found that the trial evidence could have been completed within the initially scheduled four days, with any extended period attributable to discrete exceptional circumstances including mistrial applications and a voir dire on video authenticity, both of which were reasonably unforeseeable and unavoidable from the Crown's perspective.

The application was dismissed.

This sentencing decision addresses possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, involving significant quantities of highly dangerous drugs.

The offender, Abdalaazim Malik Harun, pleaded guilty after trial commenced.

The Court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the societal harms of fentanyl and methamphetamine trafficking, while also considering the offender’s stable family support and lack of addiction.

The sentence imposed was 6.5 years on the fentanyl count and 5 years concurrent on the methamphetamine count, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court declined to grant additional Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence conditions absent evidence but allowed some mitigation for strict bail conditions (Downes credit).

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling and weapons prohibitions.

The defendants pleaded guilty to an offence under s. 12(6) of the Cannabis Act after police discovered a large-scale illegal cannabis grow operation.

The Crown sought conditional sentences of imprisonment, while the defence argued for conditional discharges and probation, emphasizing the defendants' limited role as labourers, lack of prior criminal records, and significant potential immigration consequences.

The court considered the large size of the operation as an aggravating factor but found the defendants' moral culpability to be low.

Balancing the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, and the least restrictive sanctions, alongside the severe collateral immigration consequences (potential deportation), the court determined that conditional discharges were appropriate and not contrary to the public interest.

The defendant, Emmanuel Kwarteng, was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered multiple cell phones, a large quantity of currency, and various illegal drugs in his immediate vicinity while he was sleeping in an apartment.

The court considered circumstantial evidence to establish possession, including the location and significant value of the drugs, and rejected the defendant's testimony and the suggestion that the items were planted.

The judge found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge and control of the drugs, and that the only reasonable inference was possession for trafficking.

The applicant brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 9, arguing that police violated his rights against unlawful arrest and unreasonable search or seizure, seeking to exclude evidence of illegal substances found during his arrest.

The court found the initial arrest under the Trespass to Property Act was lawful, as the police acted reasonably based on the tenant's request to remove the applicant and his subsequent refusal to leave or identify himself.

The search incident to arrest for identification purposes was also deemed reasonable and lawful, ceasing once the applicant's identity was confirmed.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to compel the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Counsel (OMVIC) to produce documents related to its investigation into alleged fraudulent purchases by the defendants.

OMVIC, though not a party to the main litigation, was the subject of the motion and resisted disclosure, citing statutory privilege under section 36(1) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the MVDA created a robust statutory privilege that prevented OMVIC from disclosing the requested information, even after the investigation concluded, and that the exceptions to the privilege did not apply to disclosure in a civil action.