M. Park

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 424 grams of cocaine and 28 grams of crack cocaine in his bedroom.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, medical issues, and restrictive bail conditions as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the 41-month and 19-day delay between his arrest and the jury's verdicts violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court calculated the total delay and deducted periods of defence delay, including time before the scheduling of the preliminary inquiry and time resulting from an abandoned Garofoli application.

The court also found that exceptional circumstances, specifically a lack of judicial resources due to illness and a family death, justified a further 7.5-month deduction.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling, and the application was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of two counts of importing cocaine and one count of conspiracy to import firearms.

The accused orchestrated the importation of eight kilograms of cocaine using couriers and conspired to import 40 to 50 handguns from the United States into Canada.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the accused's leadership role, the quantity of drugs and firearms, and a calculated profit motive.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 16 years' imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 10 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest bail.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 11.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 11 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the large quantity of drugs and financial motive, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and status as a courier.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years imprisonment, along with a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The offender pleaded guilty to importing 2.2 kg of cocaine and escaping lawful custody.

He acted as a courier, body-packing the drugs from Aruba.

The court considered the low purity of the cocaine (41%) and the offender's prior criminal record.

The court applied the Cunningham range, balancing the mitigating factor of low purity against the aggravating factor of his prior record.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 6 years' imprisonment, reduced to 4 years and 10 months after applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 8 seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from his cellular phone following his arrest.

Police seized the phone from a relative in the parking lot of the police detachment shortly after the accused surrendered and conducted a cursory search of text messages without a warrant.

The court held that the seizure and search were lawful as searches incidental to arrest, given the temporal and geographic proximity to the arrest and reasonable grounds to believe the phone contained evidence of the offence.

The search was limited and focused on relevant messages.

In the alternative, the court held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) following the Grant framework.

In a voir dire during a criminal prosecution for importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown sought a ruling that the accused’s videotaped police statement was voluntary and admissible.

The defence argued the statement was improperly induced because police referenced the accused’s family being in trouble due to the intercepted drug package.

Applying the confessions rule and the contextual approach from leading Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court considered whether police conduct amounted to a threat or promise capable of overbearing the accused’s will.

The court found no quid pro quo or inducement linking the accused’s cooperation to leniency for himself or his family.

The videotaped statement was therefore found to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and admissible at trial.

The accused applied under ss. 8, 9, and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude drugs found in the trunk of a vehicle following his arrest for multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The defence alleged the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds and argued that officers fabricated surveillance observations and notes after the arrest.

The court rejected the defence theory, finding that key allegations of fabrication were never put to the officers in cross‑examination contrary to the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

After reviewing the surveillance evidence, confidential informant information, and officer testimony, the court concluded that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and that the search of the vehicle was lawful as incidental to arrest.

The evidence of the accused and a co‑accused was rejected as improbable and inconsistent with the credible testimony of the officers.

The applicant, charged with importing cocaine, sought release on bail pending trial.

He lacked a suitable surety and proposed to act as his own surety through the Bail Program, while living with and working for a friend.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that his release was justified on the primary grounds, as he lacked meaningful roots in the community and the proposed employment and residence were not reliably confirmed.

The dismissal was without prejudice to returning with the friend to confirm the offers.

The accused were charged with production of marihuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity after arriving at a residence containing a grow operation.

The police arrested them immediately upon their arrival without reasonable grounds, and failed to properly communicate their Charter rights due to language barriers.

The court found multiple breaches of the accused's ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights and excluded the evidence obtained, including a house key and a garage door opener, under s. 24(2).

Even if the evidence were admitted, the court found the circumstantial evidence insufficient to prove knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused were found not guilty.