Nicholas Decock

The offender, Mr. Swaby, pleaded guilty to multiple offences including human trafficking, receiving material benefits from human trafficking, advertising sexual services, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and drug trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the manipulation of vulnerable victims through drugs and alcohol, the use of violence, and the presence of a firearm in an apartment with a child.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, insight into his substance abuse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of 11 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a restitution order of $30,000.

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 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 defendants brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (money and a handgun) obtained during a police interaction, alleging multiple Charter breaches related to arbitrary detention, unlawful search and seizure, and denial of the right to counsel.

The court found no arbitrary detention at the initial stages of the police interaction and determined that the subsequent search and seizure were lawful, based on reasonable grounds of Liquor License Act and Cannabis Control Act violations.

While minor breaches of the right to counsel (failure to "hold off" questioning post-arrest) and a failure to report seized items to a justice were identified, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, considering the seriousness of the conduct, the minimal impact on the defendants' rights, and society's strong interest in the adjudication of serious charges on their merits.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

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.

Police executed a search warrant using a "hard entry" at the defendant's home, seizing cocaine, phenacetin, and cash.

The defendant applied to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search and seizure due to hard entry) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found a serious s. 8 breach due to the officer's lack of understanding of the knock-and-announce rule and arbitrary decision-making.

The s. 10(b) breach was not found.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court excluded the evidence, leading to the defendant's acquittal on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.