R. v. Williams, 2026 ONCJ 37

Court File and Parties

CITATION: R. v. Williams, 2026 ONCJ 37

DATE: January 23, 2026

COURT FILE No: 23-42100607-03

O N T A R I O C O U R T OF J U S T I C E

B E T W E E N :

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

-AND-

JEVONTE WILLIAMS

Before Justice M. G. March

Heard on June 4, 5 and 6, and September 17, 2025

Reasons for Judgment rendered January 23, 2026

Guillaume Charette…...………………...……………………Counsel for the Federal Crown

Kiran Grewal and Hannah Deasy.……………………………..Counsel for Jevonte Williams

Reasons for Judgment

March, M.G., J. :

Introduction

1. On June 4, 2025, the trial of Jevonte Williams (“Williams”) began after he entered pleas of not guilty to offences alleged to have been committed on March 15, 2023 as follows:

a) possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“the CDSA”),

b) possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(3)(a) of the CDSA, and

c) possession of proceeds of crime not exceeding $5000.00, namely Canadian and U.S. currency, contrary to s. 354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code of Canada (the “Code”).

2. At the outset of the trial, Williams, through his counsel, admitted:

a) the jurisdiction of this Court to hear the matter,

b) the date of the alleged offences,

c) the continuity of the suspected contraband substances seized by police and sent to Health Canada for scientific analysis, and

d) the Certificates from Health Canada attesting to what the substances were found to contain.

3. Over the course of four days, Crown counsel called as witnesses at Williams’ trial eight police officers in an attempt to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. The case for the Crown against Williams is an entirely circumstantial one. It hinges on the execution of a search warrant by the Thunder Bay Police Service (“TBPS”) at an apartment municipally described as Unit 4, 504 Pacific Avenue (“the residence”) in the City of Thunder Bay, and the discovery of illegal drugs and a sum of cash in a room occupied by Williams at the material time.

5. Of course, the only manner by which the Crown can secure a conviction against Williams is to persuade this Court beyond a reasonable doubt that the solitary reasonable inference which can be drawn in respect of the drugs and cash found during the search of the residence is that he knew of their presence and exercised control over them.

The Evidentiary Background

The Search Warrant:

6. The defence took no issue with the validity of the search warrant granted by Justice of the Peace Neill on March 15, 2023 to the TBPS allowing a team of officers to enter the residence to look for and seize suspected contraband within it based on knowledge primarily obtained from confidential informants.

7. The information to obtain (“ITO”) setting out the basis for issuance of the warrant was sworn by Detective Constable Carson of the TBPS. The warrant judicially authorized entry to the residence on the day it was executed, March 15, 2023.

Surveillance:

8. Detective Constable Babcock of the Ontario Provincial Police testified on June 4, 2025 that, on the day in question, as part of his police duties in assisting the TBPS, he took up surveillance of a six-unit apartment building within which the residence was located. He arrived at 10:00 AM. His task was to monitor the comings and goings of individuals at the apartment building. He situated himself to be able to see the front of the building.

9. During the day and up to approximately 5:00 PM, he observed 32 people entering and exiting the building.

10. Under cross-examination, he was candid that he did not investigate whether there was a back entrance/exit to the building. Further, in his Surveillance Report, he erroneously indicated that 42 people had entered and exited the building, when in fact, his duty book notes indicated only 32 had.

11. While he was conducting these duties, Detective Constable Babcock was aware that the ITO for the search warrant in question was being drawn up by one of his fellow officers. The purpose of his surveillance was to add to the grounds for its issuance.

12. He was clear that he placed no particular focus on any individual going in or coming out. He was not close enough to the front of the building to discern “descriptors” in any event. It was still wintertime. The people he observed were possibly wearing heavy jackets and/or toques or had their hoods up. He believed while giving his evidence that he did not notice whether any of the 32 individuals were Black.

13. When it was drawn to his attention that at page 57 of his duty book, he had made note that at 1:00 PM a male Black person came out of a white SUV and entered the building, he remembered that this observation he made was accurate.

14. At no point did Detective Constable Babcock take photos of the individuals entering and exiting the building. His objective was simply to keep a count of the number of individuals coming and going.

15. Detective Constable Bartol of the TBPS stated that he attended the scene at 1:21 PM to assist with surveillance initially. He also witnessed “heavy foot traffic in and out of the building”.

16. He explained that it was a “tight area”. By that, he meant that it was difficult to conduct surveillance. He was unaware of any photographs being taken because it would make officers look very suspicious to anyone in the vicinity.

17. He was focused on the front entrance to the building. He did not know if people were entering from the rear.

18. He considered his role primarily to be keeping members of the public away from the residence while the search was about to be conducted by police, and to prevent the escape of any of its occupants during its execution. Essentially, he was keeping “cover” on the doors and windows of the building from outside.

19. Detective Constable Veal of the TBPS Intelligence Unit gave evidence on June 5, 2025 that he also conducted surveillance of the residence commencing at 1:25 PM. He considered his initial role to be keeping an eye on the “vehicular and foot traffic to and from” the building. Similar to his fellow officers, he described “short durations of stay” by the visitors. He knew some of the attendees to be drug users. Furthermore, he opined that some of the people who entered the building met the description of the targets they were looking for.

20. Detective Constable Carson testified on June 6, 2025 that he had been a member of the Intelligence Unit of the TBPS since 2018. He considered himself to be the lead investigator into the alleged offences occurring at the residence in question. He had obtained information from several confidential informants regarding suspected criminal activity in one of the units of the apartment building. He also authored the ITO sworn in support of the issuance of the search warrant executed on March 15, 2023.

21. He believed that 16 individuals were observed to enter the building and exit following a short visit by them on the day in question. One Black male was observed to exit a white Toyota SUV at 1:00 PM. The male then exited at 1:33 PM. Under cross-examination, Detective Constable Carson corrected himself regarding the notation made by police in the Surveillance Report. It spoke of a “male in all black”, and not to the race of the individual seen.

22. Detective Constable Carson maintained that race had no bearing on the police investigation. He conceded however that Williams, as a Black man found at the point in time he was within the residence in Thunder Bay where the search warrant was executed, did not militate in his favour.

23. He confirmed as well that the only surveillance conducted of the residence was the day of William’s arrest, March 15, 2023.

24. Detective Morgan testified that on June 4, 2025, he had been the Supervisor of the Intelligence Unit of the TBPS for the past two and a half years. He had spent eight years in the unit prior thereto.

25. On March 15, 2023, he arrived on scene shortly before the execution of the warrant. He made no duty book entry of his exact time of arrival; however, he was certain it was before the briefing of officers conducted by Detective Constable Carson at 4:37 PM.

26. Detective Morgan had been conducting surveillance in the area beforehand. He took no photographs of the individuals entering or exiting the building, nor was he aware of any other officer having done so. He noticed “steady foot traffic” coming and going from the building.

27. The other officers and he changed positions and rotated around to keep watch.

Operational Plan (“OP”)/Situation Mission Execution Administration Command (“SMEAC”):

28. Under the OP prepared by police, Detective Constable Babcock knew that “Junior” was a Black male targeted in the investigation. The additional descriptors for Junior given to Detective Constable Babcock was that he was tall, in his mid-20s and had dreadlocks.

29. Another individual known by name to police was Glen Campbell, who they believed to be the homeowner or primary occupant.

30. Two other Black males were also known to frequent the residence. Neither was attributed a name in the OP. One was in his mid-20s and had dreadlocks, the other was younger with shorter, curly hair.

31. The officers could not remember being shown photographs of any of the targeted individuals prior to execution of the warrant. Only brief written descriptions were provided to them. No one of interest was indicated as a person who wore glasses.

32. The officers were concerned about Junior possibly being in possession of a handgun. The OP and SMEAC mentioned fentanyl and cocaine as the illegal drugs being trafficked out of the residence.

33. All “found-ins” were to be arrested and secured.

Execution of the Search Warrant:

34. The search warrant for the residence was executed in two phases.

35. Firstly, the Emergency Task Force of the TBPS entered the building, and soon after, the residence with firearms drawn. The aim was to neutralize any danger for the police officers involved and to preserve the evidence of drug trafficking by preventing the concealment or destruction of substance, paraphernalia, etc.

36. Secondly, after the residence was “cleared”, the members of the Intelligence Unit were to enter the residence and seize the items they were searching for. This included searches of the persons found within the residence.

Emergency Task Force:

37. When Constable Veneruz of the TBPS testified on June 4, 2025, he indicated that by that point, he had been a member of the Emergency Task Force for four years. He explained that the role of his unit was to assist with calls made to police involving weapons, as well as the execution of CDSA search warrants in high-risk situations.

38. He did not specifically recall how many members of his unit were present at the residence on March 15, 2023, when the warrant was executed. He knew that he held the designation of “No. 4”. He surmised that there was at least four members of his unit present on scene as a result. He estimated that there were eight to 12 other officers in attendance.

39. At 4:56 PM, he arrived on scene. He recalled that the members of his unit entered the building with weapons drawn, and the “breacher” rammed the main door to unit 4.

40. There was an individual seated in a chair behind the front entrance door, or just off to the side. When Constable Veneruz passed by him, that individual had his head down and his hands covering his face.

41. Constable Veneruz proceeded down a hallway to the right accompanied by his unit partner, Constable Bliss. Constable Veneruz noticed, as he walked down the hall, a sign on the wall which read: “No one beyond this point”, or words to that effect. Constable Veneruz found this to be “abnormal”. He did not see a second sign.

42. He then encountered a curtain closing off the entrance to a room at the end of the hall. He opened the curtain. Inside, he found an individual, later identified as Williams, lying on the floor on his stomach and holding a cell phone near his head.

43. Constable Veneruz described Williams as being compliant with all the officers’ directions. Constable Veneruz assisted Williams to a sitting position. The officer next told the accused to place his hands behind his back. Williams complied. The accused was then handcuffed.

44. Constable Veneruz stated that Williams was wearing glasses and all black clothing. The accused was a Black man with a heavy build and looking similar to the way he appeared in court on the date Constable Veneruz gave his evidence. The officer could not recall whether Williams had his hair on March 15, 2023 styled in dreadlocks.

45. Constable Veneruz was clear that he could not say whether Williams matched the description of any of the targets the officers had been made aware of.

46. Once Williams was arrested and handcuffed, Constable Veneruz indicated that Constables Carson, Jacobson and Bartol then entered the room. Constable Veneruz then pointed out to those other officers where the phone was located.

47. To Constable Veneruz’s knowledge, no weapon was found in the room or on the person of Williams, albeit Cst. Veneruz did not search the room in which the accused was found.

48. The officer did not believe that his active role in the investigation lasted any more than ten minutes. He entered the building at 4:56 PM. He had Williams in police custody by 5:05 PM.

49. Constable Veneruz only recalled seeing two occupants within the residence, the doorman and Williams.

50. Constable Veneruz acknowledged that whenever a weapon is drawn by an officer, a Use of Force Report ought to be generated by police. He did not prepare one. He understood that one of the Team Leaders or a Sergeant would have completed it. He had no first-hand knowledge of whether one was actually done, or who did it.

TBPS Intelligence Unit:

51. After the “clearing” of the residence by the Emergency Task Force, members of the TBPS Intelligence Unit entered to take over execution of the search warrant.

52. Detective Constable Morgan, as the Intelligence Unit’s Supervisor, did a “walk through” of the residence. He wished to ensure there were “no issues” and no need for more officers to attend the scene.

53. In describing the layout of the residence, he indicated that there were three bedrooms, one to the southeast, another in the middle and a final one to the southwest. Williams was located in the southwest bedroom at the end of a hallway to the right as one enters through the front door.

54. Along the hallway to the southwest bedroom, Detective Morgan noticed a sign, which read: “No one past this point - no exceptions”. Another sign between the middle and southwest bedroom read: “Do not enter, do not touch shit. There are cameras. I’ll be watching you!”

55. On a table in the southwest bedroom, the officer saw a baby monitor, packaging materials and a scale. He did not notice any other “baby paraphernalia” in the residence. He did not recall a TV or dresser being in that room. There was no bed. There were some side tables. According to Detective Morgan, the room was set up for “drug trafficking”, not sleeping.

56. In his evidence, Detective Morgan was careful to point out that he did not enter the southwest bedroom. He only looked in. He searched the middle bedroom where he found on an end table by the corner of the bed two small clear plastic vials, one which he believed to contain purple rock (fentanyl), and another which he believed to contain a small, white, rock-like substance (crack cocaine).

57. Detective Morgan explained that the TBPS will then record a pre-search video. The recording captures the state of the dwelling at the time of police entry.

58. Thereafter, an officer would be assigned to photograph all items seized by police.

59. Under cross-examination, Detective Morgan emphasized that he likes to know where people are located upon entering premises for the execution of a search warrant because it provides him with “a better picture for down the road”. He specifically recalled that individuals named Becky Campbell, Cheyenne Baxter and Walter Baxter were situated in the southeast bedroom. Glenn Campbell was alone in the middle bedroom, and Williams was alone in the southwest bedroom.

60. Another person named Sean Maybee sounded familiar to Detective Morgan when it was put to him, but he did not note it in his duty book or elsewhere.

61. The officer made it clear that he assumed responsibility for searching the southeast bedroom. When confronted, he agreed that there was a child’s backpack hanging on its far wall. There was also a photo of a child on a dresser in that room. As well, there was tinfoil and a scale on a bench. The tinfoil was creased, but the officer could not say if it was used or not. It appeared also as though a white rock-like substance was located on the tinfoil. There was also a cellphone placed face down, which the officer did not believe was seized.

62. He added that if anyone seized it, it would have been listed. He offered that if it was damaged or not working, it would not be seized, because it would have no evidentiary value. No mail or other documents with Williams’ name on them were found in that room. The officer conceded that he would have seized, or at least photographed, any such documentary evidence.

63. Detective Morgan stated that he arrested Walter Baxter, but he left it to Detective Constable Carson to make the decision about whether Mr. Baxter would be charged or not. Detective Morgan confirmed that Mr. Baxter was Indigenous, not Black.

64. The officer could not definitively say to whom the southeast bedroom belonged, nor did he note a deadbolt on the bedroom door prohibiting access to it.

65. Constable Bartol indicated that he also entered the residence after it was “cleared” by the Emergency Task Force. He assisted with the transport of the individuals located inside to the detachment. In so doing, he dealt directly with Williams.

66. Accompanied by Detective Constable Jacobsen, Detective Constable Bartol saw one individual, Williams, in the southwest bedroom. Detective Constable Bartol described Williams as being a Black male, 5’7” or 5’8” in height, wearing gold glasses, and of a chunky build.

67. Constable Bartol informed Williams that he was under arrest for possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and fentanyl. The officer searched the person of Williams, but found nothing of interest on him. Afterwards, Detective Constable Jacobsen read rights to counsel to him. Williams next identified himself and pointed to a black, puffy jacket with “Mackage” written on its left arm. The jacket was situated nearby. The officer did not search it, nor any of the other bags located on the floor. The jacket contained Williams’ photo ID, an Ontario driver’s licence.

68. Detective Constable Bartol told Williams that he would be transported to the police station. The officer also assisted with Mr. Baxter’s transport as well.

69. Detective Constable Bartol noticed a baby monitor on the table in the room where Williams was located. The officer opined that drug traffickers often use them to see the comings and goings of people attending where their business is conducted. Detective Constable Bartol added that he did not find a camera associated to the baby monitor; however, he did not look for one either.

70. Under cross-examination, the officer indicated that he believed Williams matched the description of one of the targets set out in the OP/SMEAC. Williams was male, Black, younger, short and had dreadlocks. At the time Detective Constable Bartol first encountered Williams, the officer stated he may have been wearing a durag, but the officer was not certain. Later, he conceded, he was not sure if Williams had dreadlocks.

71. Detective Constable Bartol estimated that he was in the southwest bedroom for approximately 15 minutes before police cruisers attended for transport of the occupants to the police detachment.

72. Detective Constable Jacobsen considered his role to be as “photo officer”. He shot the pre-search video as well.

73. After the residence was cleared by the Emergency Task Force, he entered it with Detective Constable Bartol and saw Williams in the southwest bedroom. Detective Constable Jacobsen recalled that Williams was already handcuffed and standing at that point. The officer read him his rights to counsel and cautioned him for “possession for the purpose”.

74. At 5:38 PM, Detective Constable Jacobsen recorded the pre-search video. He explained that the video was shot before any seizures were made of items of interest. Later, those items were photographed by the officer and depicted:

a) the signs posted on the walls,

b) the baby monitor,

c) latex gloves,

d) tinfoil,

e) an X-Acto knife,

f) needles and used needle holders,

g) Ziploc bags,

h) white powder,

i) an Esso receipt for the purchase of gas in Blind River dated March 13, 2023,

j) a $20 bill on the floor of the southwest bedroom,

k) an inflatable mattress,

l) Canadian currency bound by two elastic bands in various denominations,

m) two end tables stacked one upon the other,

n) two plastic baggies, one containing a white, hard rock substance and another containing multicoloured substances,

o) a black sock inside of which a white, hard rock substance and multicoloured substances were located,

p) a digital scale in working order,

q) a second digital scale in working order,

r) a third digital scale with white residue on it,

s) cash in the pocket of a black, puffy, Mackage jacket,

t) a Ziploc bag containing tablets of Tylenol 3,

u) a container of suspected crack cocaine located on the person of Glen Campbell,

v) vials of suspected blue and yellow fentanyl, and rock cocaine, located on the person of Glen Campbell,

w) a Samsung cellphone located in the middle bedroom,

x) a plastic vial of purple fentanyl contained in the southeast bedroom,

y) two vials - one containing suspected purple fentanyl, and the other containing suspected rock cocaine located in the southeast bedroom,

z) a cellphone located on the deflated air mattress in the southwest bedroom,

aa) backside of cellphone referred to in z) above,

bb) Ziploc bag containing suspected rock cocaine found in a black sock in the southwest bedroom,

cc) Ziploc bag of suspected multicoloured fentanyl found in the black sock of the southwest bedroom, and

dd) two end tables with plastic bags and gloves adjacent to them.

75. Detective Constable Jacobsen testified that the vast majority of the items photographed were located in the southwest bedroom occupied by Williams. The items were drawn to Constable Jacobsen’s attention by other officers before pictures were taken of them.

76. Detective Constable Veal then assumed responsibility for seizing the items.

77. Under cross-examination, Detective Constable Jacobsen conceded that he did not know where the camera was located, if there was one within the residence, linked to the baby monitor. Accordingly, he did not video record or take a photograph of the camera. His recollection was that there was a blue screen depicted on the baby monitor.

78. The officer did not notice other items within the residence associated with younger children. He agreed nevertheless, when his attention was drawn to certain items by defence counsel, that there was a picture of a baby on one of the dressers, as well as colouring books and markers depicted in the video he shot, but as the officer explained, those were not the types of items he was looking for.

79. Detective Constable Jacobsen also acknowledged that there was a woman’s purse on the floor next to the deflated air mattress in the southwest bedroom. Even though he was the search officer, he did not look at the contents of the purse. He surmised that there was nothing of significance in it.

80. He also agreed that there was a letter underneath a white bag which contained the Esso receipt. He assumed that there was no name on the letter.

81. Underneath the sock located in the stacked end tables of the southwest bedroom, there also appeared to be another letter, or some other type of correspondence. He agreed there was likely a name on it, but stated there was no evidentiary value in it. Therefore, he did not take a picture of it. He allowed for the possibility that if there was a name on it, it was not documented anywhere in the records kept of their investigation into Williams and the criminal activity that may have been occurring within the residence.

82. The officer conceded as well that there was a cellphone or another type of electronic device under a box of the latex gloves. He did not seize that phone or device, nor did any other police officer to his knowledge.

83. Constable Jacobsen made it clear that he did not search any of the other rooms apart from the southwest bedroom. He did nevertheless take photos of things elsewhere that were drawn to his attention.

84. When shown a still photo taken from the pre-search video he made, he agreed that he could see a scale on a bench in another one of the bedrooms within the residence. It was not seized by police, nor were the multiple pipes located within the residence likely used for smoking illicit substances.

85. Regarding Williams’ arrest, Detective Constable Jacobsen clarified that he did not carry it out. Williams was already in police custody when Constable Jacobsen entered the southwest bedroom. However, Detective Constable Jacobsen did provide him with his rights to counsel.

86. Detective Constable Jacobsen could not recall whether any of the suspected, illegal substances were in plain view. Only the paraphernalia was to his recollection. The substances were hidden, for example, such as in the sock, except for some residue left on the scales.

87. The officer was not aware of any packaging materials being sent to the Centre of Forensic Sciences for DNA testing.

88. He agreed that no incriminating evidence was found on Williams’ person. The Mackage jacket contained only $60 cash. Detective Constable Jacobsen could not recall if Williams was wearing his hair in dreadlocks, nor any of the clothing he had on. He was then reminded that he did mention in his duty book notes that Williams was wearing a durag, dark clothing and had gold glasses. He agreed that none of the targets identified in the OP/SMEAC were described as wearing glasses.

89. To Detective Constable Jacobsen’s knowledge, the Mackage jacket was not seized by police. Nor was any firearm found during the search of the residence. However, the officer disagreed that Williams did not match one of the targets. The officer pointed out that Williams was a Black male, younger, of shorter stature and had curly dreadlocks.

90. Detective Constable Veal testified that he acted in concert with Detective Constable Jacobsen as the Exhibits Officer. They remained within arm’s length of each other as they conducted a search of the residence.

91. Detective Constable Veal supplemented the information gathered by Detective Constable Jacobsen in the following respects regarding items seized by police in the southwest bedroom of the residence:

a) the $20 bill was found at the foot of a chair on the floor,

b) the cell phone located on the deflated air mattress had as its background a photo of an African Canadian infant,

c) the bundle of currency found in the stacked end tables amounted to $2955.00 CDN and $8.00 US,

d) the black sock was knotted and contained suspected crack cocaine weighing 94.43 gms and multi-coloured fentanyl weighing 23.13; as well as 70 pre-packaged tinfoil flaps each weighing approximately 0.24 gms of fentanyl,

e) the first digital scale was a Proscale III with a filmy residue on its weighing area,

f) the second digital scale, an Infinity brand, was placed on a grey plastic table with latex gloves nearby,

g) the third digital scale, also an Infinity brand, was also “contaminated”, and did not appear to have a new, shiny hue to it,

h) the $60.00 CDN found in the Mackage jacket was composed of three $20.00 bills, and

i) the Ziploc bag containing the Tylenol 3 tablets amounted to 395 in total.

92. Detective Constable Veal explained that he placed all items seized in an evidence bag. Another member of the TBPS, Detective Constable Rybak, sent samples of the suspected illegal substances to Health Canada for scientific analysis. As earlier mentioned, the defence took no issue with the continuity of the substances seized and the subsequent analysis conducted by Health Canada to determine what the substances contained.

93. Detective Constable Veal indicated that items such as push stems, glass pipes, gloves, etc. would not be seized according to TBPS policy. As the officer put it, “We don’t need it all”.

94. Under cross-examination, Detective Constable Veal pointed out that he did not consider himself to be one of the officers involved in searching for items authorized to be seized under authority of the search warrant. His role was simply to document what was seized.

95. The officer appreciated that the search warrant permitted seizure of scales. When it was pointed out to him that the scale present in the middle bedroom, as depicted in the still photo shown to him, and captured during the pre-search video, was not seized by police, Detective Constable Veal explained that the scale would not be seized if it was inoperative. He did not test that particular scale. Nor did he recall Jacobsen testing it. Similarly, a scale located in the southeast bedroom was not seized, nor a cell phone depicted nearby.

96. Detective Constable Veal went on to offer that if a cell phone is “dead”, police may plug it in to see if it will “come back”. The officer explained that if a phone has been dead for any length of time, there is limited data that can be recovered from it.

97. Detective Constable Veal had no idea whether that phone was on or off, whether it was seized, or whether the scale was seized.

98. When questioned as to whether items listed for seizure on the search warrant were ignored, Detective Constable Veal explained that some items were only photographed, for example, straws, pipes and latex gloves.

99. Regarding evidence of tenancy, Detective Constable Veal agreed that such items would be of interest to police. Those would be simply photographed as well, for example, a phone bill to offer some proof of tenancy.

100. When shown by defence counsel a photograph of the two stacked end tables with the knotted black sock and two pieces of mail underneath it, Detective Constable Veal agreed that he did not inspect them. Nor was he aware of any other police officer having done so. Furthermore, he did not know if photographs were taken of those pieces of mail. In essence, he was not aware of whether either had been checked for a name and address. The officer conceded as well that one of those pieces appeared to emanate from a governmental agency. It likely would have had a name and address on it.

101. Detective Constable Veal testified that no clothes and nothing specifically belonging to Williams was found in the southwest bedroom of the residence.

102. Detective Constable Carson indicated that after the residence was cleared, he believed he was first amongst the seven to eight TBPS members to enter to assist with the execution of the search warrant. He proceeded through the destroyed front door and down a long hallway to his right where he saw Williams.

103. The sheet covering the doorway to the room where Williams was located was something Detective Constable Veal Carson had seen in the past when executing search warrants. He offered that the sheet is used as a covering to conceal the activity occurring within the room behind it.

104. Williams was between a plastic table and two end tables, prone on the floor of that room, and handcuffed behind his back. Constable Veneruz was standing nearby. No one else was in that room besides Williams and Constable Veneruz .

105. Detective Constable Carson believed that Williams matched the description of one of the unknown Black males. He looked young. He had short curly dreadlocks. As well, he was shorter in stature.

106. Immediately upon entering the room, Detective Constable Carson was able to observe a table with ripped pieces of tinfoil on it, as well as a digital scale and a baby monitor. There were also two wooden end table stacked one upon the other like a magazine rack nearby. Peering inside, the officer was able to see a bundle of Canadian currency. There were also other scales on the floor.

107. There was no sofa or other furniture in the room. There was nevertheless a half-deflated, air mattress. Additionally, there were two chairs, one placed to the left side of the room close to the sheet. The other was beside the table at the back of the room.

108. Detective Constable Carson described the aforementioned items he saw as “tools of the trade”.

109. The officer clarified that tinfoil, and the scale could be associated with drug use, but it was not a “user table”. It was intended for trafficking. The digital scales were used to weigh the product. The rubber gloves were intended to prevent fentanyl from going into the blood stream when handled. The hand sanitizer, wipes and medical masks were also intended for preventive purposes to avoid accidental ingestion. Extra scales were needed in case of malfunction or a dead battery.

110. Detective Constable Carson commented that, to his knowledge, Williams was cooperative throughout his dealings with police.

111. Under cross-examination, Detective Constable Carson indicated that Sean Maybee was one of the found-ins. It was the officer’s decision to release him at the scene without being charged upon hearing Mr. Maybee’s explanation that he was only there to collect clothes. He did have on his person a crack pipe and a push stick. He did not have any suspected illegal drugs. In Detective Constable Carson’s view, Mr. Maybee was not associated to any drug trafficking activity. He was found in the kitchen of the residence. He was not in the area where the drug trafficking was taking place.

112. When confronted by defence counsel that there was a scale in the kitchen area as well as multiple Ziploc bags, Detective Constable Carson testified that he did not check whether the scale was in working order.

113. The officer confirmed that Mr. Maybee was not charged even though he was in close proximity to suspected illegal drugs and paraphernalia associated with drug trafficking. Equally, neither Cheyenne Baxter nor Walter Baxter was charged.

114. Detective Constable Carson also acknowledged that Williams similarly had no suspected illegal drugs on his person. Nor did he have a scale, baggies or debt list. The cellphone believed to belong to him was not seized by police. No incriminating texts were retrieved from it as a result. Essentially, no forensic analysis was done on the phone.

115. The officer explained that search warrants are not obtained for all cellphones seized by police during drug trafficking investigations. Detective Constable Carson simply believed he did not need one in this case. The items found in the room where Williams was located in the residence formed the basis for the charges laid against him.

116. Detective Constable Carson agreed that no drugs nor cash were in plain view in the room where Williams was found.

117. The officer confirmed that the southeast bedroom had a heavy duty, inward facing lock latch on the door. He acknowledged that the latch provided more security to prevent entry than a curtain would.

118. In the southwest bedroom where Williams was located, Detective Constable Carson acknowledged that a woman’s purse was located on top of the inflated mattress. The officer did not look inside it. He did not know if it was searched.

119. Additionally, police found no camera connected to the baby monitor found in the room where Williams was arrested. Indeed, it did not appear to be monitoring anything.

120. Detective Constable Carson believed he left before the knotted sock was located, and inside of which the suspected illegal substances were discovered by other police officers.

121. When confronted with the photographs depicting letters and other documents, Detective Constable Carson offered that he presumed they were addressed to someone. However, he was not aware of Detective Constable Jacobson or any other police officer seizing or photographing the letters or documents.

122. Detective Constable Carson maintained his belief that Williams met the description of one of the unknown, Black male targets, even when shown by defence counsel a still photo taken during Williams’ transport to the police detachment on March 15, 2023 depicting no dreadlocks hanging from under his durag. The officer pointed out that Williams could still be the younger Black male, short in stature with curly dreadlocks.

123. The officer reconfirmed that no fingerprints nor DNA were taken from any items located in the southwest bedroom. He agreed that there was no evidence found at the residence, such as clothing, mail or other indicia, to suggest that the accused was a habitual occupant. Indeed, Detective Constable Carson conceded police did not know how long he had been in the residence before the search warrant was executed.

Booking:

124. Following the execution of the search warrant, Detective Constable Bartol was in charge of the TBPS booking room. This officer assumed responsibility for dealing with the people found in the residence, and later processing them at the detachment.

125. In addition to arranging for the transport of Williams to the TBPS detachment, Detective Constable Bartol contacted a lawyer for him at his request. The officer “processed” Williams as well as several others including Glen and Becky Campbell and two others. Williams was the only Black person amongst them.

126. Detective Constable Bartol did not take a photograph of Williams driver’s license prior to his release.

Expert Evidence:

127. Detective Constable Davis began giving his testimony on June 6, 2025. According to his curriculum vitae filed as Exhibit 5 at Williams’ trial, he has been qualified to provide expert evidence in this Court and in the Superior Court of Justice on numerous occasions spanning March 30, 2015 to March 19, 2025.

128. His areas of expertise span the pricing, packaging, paraphernalia, methods and quantities of use, jargon, and habits of both personal users and traffickers in cocaine and fentanyl, amongst other drugs. The defence took no issue as to Davis’s qualifications to provide this Court with opinion evidence in respect of the cocaine and fentanyl found in the room occupied by Williams on the day in question, March 15, 2023.

129. Constable Davis also produced a written report regarding his findings. On consent, the report was filed as Exhibit 6 at William’s trial.

130. The officer stated that he has been a member of the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Ontario Provincial Police since 2013.

131. Based on his review of the Crown synopsis of the investigation into Williams and the suspected criminal activity occurring at 4-504 Pacific Ave., Thunder Bay, as well as his review of the photographs, pre-search video and Exhibit List made by the officers involved, Constable Davis reached the opinion that the drugs found in the room occupied by Williams at the time of his arrest, and the execution of the search warrant by police, were possessed by him for the purpose of trafficking. The drugs were not intended for personal use.

132. Constable Davis described the residence as a “typical trap house”. It was a common mode of operation for drug traffickers to employ. It included the use of a doorman, who would deal with the customers attending at the front door. The customer would knock. He or she would place his or her order. The doorman would then speak to the trafficker in a different room, making the customer wait at the doorway. The customer would never see the trafficker. The doorman would then deliver the drug(s) to the customer and take payment for it, most commonly in the form of cash.

133. Upon his review of the photographs and possibly the pre-search video, Constable Davis was able to say that the set-up of the southwest bedroom had all the obvious signs of drug trafficking. There was a worktable and packaging materials. That was where the trafficker would prepare the drugs for sale.

134. Of note were the 70 individually packaged, pieces of tinfoil containing fentanyl. There was also a bulk amount (54.69 gms.) ready for subsequent processing. According to Detective Constable Davis, the 70 prepackaged amounts of fentanyl were “very telling”. The officer explained that typically fentanyl is sold in .1 or .2 gm. allotments. Most customers will only use those quantities at one time depending on their tolerance level.

135. The bulk amount could produce 547 doses for sale to fentanyl users (i.e. 54.69 ÷ 0.1). With each 0.1 gm dose being sold for as low as $30 and as high as $50, the yield for the drug trafficker could range from $16,407.00 to $27,343.00.

136. Rubber gloves were either on or near the working table to allow for the safe handling of the fentanyl, to prevent it from being absorbed into the skin, or from being ingested by accidental touch in the mouth area when residue of the drug remained on the trafficker’s fingers or hands.

137. Furthermore, there was crack cocaine in a bulk sum of 94.43 gms. also available for purchase by potential customers.

138. Detective Constable Davis’s opinion was somewhat limited by the fact that the TBPS had not provided him with a breakdown of where specifically the fentanyl and cocaine were found on a room-by-room basis.

139. Detective Constable Davis went on to explain that many factors inform his opinion as to whether the quantity found was intended for personal use or trafficking. For example, crack pipes and empty packages are suggestive of personal use, whereas scales, bulk quantities of drugs and other packaging paraphernalia are more indicative of trafficking. A significant amount of cash was also found in the room occupied by Williams and constituted the proceeds of sale for both fentanyl and crack cocaine. In short, the officer described the room as a “drug processing station”.

140. Detective Constable Davis Veneruz also clarified that he “looks at the totality of the circumstances” in determining whether the drugs were intended for personal use or trafficking. As a general rule, any quantity greater than 3.5 to 5 gms of fentanyl or crack cocaine is likely an amount possessed for the purpose of trafficking.

141. The officer added that fentanyl does not come naturally in any particular colour. Colouring is added during processing to accord with customer preference, be it purple, yellow, blue or red.

142. Constable Davis was not surprised by the presence of Tylenol 3’s in the room occupied by Williams. He offered that traffickers in trap houses will commonly sell multiple types of substances such as hydromorphone, percocets and other opiates. The officer pointed out as well that Tylenol 3’s can only be obtained legally in Canada with a prescription.

143. When Constable Davis resumed giving his evidence on September 17, 2025, he indicated that the bundle of Canadian currency ($2955.00) is an unusually large amount for an average person to possess. Sizeable sums of cash are typically generated through the proceeds of sale from customers buying in small quantities.

144. Under cross-examination, Constable Davis acknowledged that there were other individuals found in the residence at the time that Williams was arrested. He conceded that the southeast and middle bedrooms had indicia of trafficking within them as well, scales, tinfoil and cellphones, for example.

145. Nevertheless, the officer maintained his opinion that the residence was a “standard trap house”. There was a mix of users and traffickers.

146. He pointed out that the room with the signs prohibiting entry behind the curtain was intended to prevent users from going in there and potentially stealing either drugs or cash. Indeed, that is why traffickers would typically conceal the bulk amount of the drugs, as well as the cash derived from proceeds of sale. The aim is to prevent a “rip”, or in other words, a robbery by a resident or customer who sees and becomes aware of how much cash or drugs the trafficker has.

147. Based on the sheer quantum of fentanyl and crack cocaine found in the southwest bedroom, Constable explained, he was able to form his opinion the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking

148. The amount of cash the trafficker had on hand is determined, of course, by “how busy the trap is”. Detective Constable Davis offered that daily, or perhaps every second day, the cash will be moved off-site and the drugs resupplied.

The Position of the Crown

149. Crown counsel emphasized to the Court that this case is very fact driven. The Crown’s ability, or lack thereof, to prove William’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt relies upon circumstantial evidence to demonstrate his knowledge and control over the cash and illegal drugs found in the room where he was located at the time the search warrant was executed.

150. The police investigation was not perfect. It did not have to be. It demonstrated that Williams had within his reach access to the drugs and cash.

151. When Constable Veneruz entered the southwest bedroom, Williams essentially had surrendered himself to his fate by lying flat on his stomach on the floor. In other words, Williams expected to be arrested because of where he was and what he was doing.

152. It was clear to any objective observer what was going on in that room. It was not a room where someone slept. It was a place where business was conducted - namely the processing of drugs for street-level sales.

153. The expert evidence of Detective Constable Davis went largely unchallenged. The drugs and money were hidden to prevent a rip. It made no sense to leave them out in the open. The layout of the room where the workstation for processing drugs was set up was typical of a “trap house”.

154. There is no innocent scenario by which Williams would have been permitted to be in that room, unless he had been entitled to be there. The signs leading to it spoke clearly to prohibiting entry by anyone unauthorized or lacking permission to be inside it. He either deemed that room a ‘no go’ zone himself, or someone entrusted him to be alone in there. As a matter of logic and human experience, this is the only reasonable conclusion to be reached.

155. Crown counsel was not asking the Court to engage in speculation. Indeed, the Court would only do so by attempting to come up with an innocent explanation as to why Williams was in the southwest bedroom.

156. Of course, the accused was under no obligation to testify. He bore no onus of proof at his trial. However, upon a review of the totality of the circumstantial evidence, the only reasonable inference which can be drawn according to Crown counsel was that Williams was a drug trafficker. The Crown has thus proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Position of the Defence

157. The defence urged upon the Court the inadequacy of the investigation conducted by police in this case. For example, the shortcomings included:

a) the minimal descriptors provided in the OP and SMEAC for the targets police sought to arrest upon entry to the residence,

b) the meagre, same-day surveillance of the residence conducted by police in the hours preceding execution of the search warrant,

c) the failure by Constable Veneruz to prepare a Use of Force Report despite having drawn his weapon before entering the residence to detain, and possibly arrest its occupants,

d) the inability on the part of Detective Constable Morgan to recall upon entering the southwest bedroom whether the curtain was open or closed, and his lack of recall as to whether Sean Maybee was in the residence, even though his task was to document who the individuals found in it were,

e) the concession by some officers that they were unable to say whether Williams was one of their targets, and

f) the dubious assertion by other officers that Williams fitted the description of one of their targets.

158. Essentially, defence counsel argued that the police developed “tunnel vision”. They found a Black man in Thunder Bay in the residence and automatically assumed he was one of the three Black men indicated in the OP and SMEAC as targets. In so doing, they ignored Glen Campbell, the man who police understood to be the homeowner and habitual occupant of the residence - the one who had the greatest connection or nexus to it. They disregarded the four other individuals as well in the residence, Becky Campbell, Sean Maybee, and Walter and Cheyenne Baxter.

159. There was no indicia that Williams lived in the residence. Aside from his Mackage winter jacket, he had no other clothes in the southwest bedroom.

160. The police did not seize the cellphone they believed to belong to him. They did not seek a warrant to extract its data and to investigate its contents for incriminating texts or photographs.

161. Williams was simply a “found in”. There was no evidence to suggest he controlled who entered the residence. One could rationally deduce that he was a one-time visitor to the premises. There was nothing to connect him to the drugs or the cash. Nor could he be imputed with the knowledge that they were present in that southwest bedroom. They were hidden from view.

162. Crown counsel could point to little, if anything, to indicate that Williams knew of the presence of the drugs and exercised an ability to control them.

163. Defence counsel also drew my attention to paragraphs 25 to 31, and 38 to 43 inclusive of R. v. Villaroman , 2016 SCC 33, the benchmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) on circumstantial evidence.

164. In short, the defence argued that to suggest Williams probably committed the offences was insufficient. There can be no room for speculation that Williams was guilty. The Crown must prove to a much greater certainty that he was the actual perpetrator of the crimes at issue.

The Law

Circumstantial evidence and proof beyond a reasonable doubt:

165. In Villaroman, Cromwell J., speaking for a unanimous full panel of the SCC explained how circumstantial evidence is to be regarded by a trier of fact in the following paragraphs:

25The Court has generally described the rule in Hodge’s Case as an elaboration of the reasonable doubt standard: Mitchell; John v. The Queen, 1970 199 (SCC), [1971] S.C.R. 781, per Ritchie J., at pp. 791-92; Cooper; Mezzo v. The Queen, 1986 16 (SCC), [1986] 1 S.C.R. 802, at p. 843. If that is all that Hodge’s Case was concerned with, then any special instruction relating to circumstantial evidence could be seen as an unnecessary and potentially confusing addition to the reasonable doubt instruction.

26However, that is not all that Hodge’s Case was concerned with. There is a special concern inherent in the inferential reasoning from circumstantial evidence. The concern is that the jury may unconsciously “fill in the blanks” or bridge gaps in the evidence to support the inference that the Crown invites it to draw. Baron Alderson referred to this risk in Hodge’s Case. He noted the jury may “look for — and often slightly . . . distort the facts” to make them fit the inference that they are invited to draw: p. 1137. Or, as his remarks are recorded in another report, the danger is that the mind may “take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole”: W. Wills, Wills’ Principles of Circumstantial Evidence (7th ed. 1937), at p. 45; cited by Laskin J. in John, dissenting but not on this point, at p. 813.

27While this 19th century language is not suitable for a contemporary jury instruction, the basic concern that Baron Alderson described — the danger of jumping to unwarranted conclusions in circumstantial cases — remains real. When the concern about circumstantial evidence is understood in this way, an instruction concerning the use of circumstantial evidence and the reasonable doubt instruction have different, although related, purposes: see B. L. Berger, “The Rule in Hodge’s Case: Rumours of its Death are Greatly Exaggerated” (2005), 84 Can. Bar Rev. 47, at pp. 60-61.

28The reasonable doubt instruction describes a state of mind — the degree of persuasion that entitles and requires a juror to find an accused guilty: Berger, at p. 60. Reasonable doubt is not an inference or a finding of fact that needs support in the evidence presented at trial: see, e.g. Schuldt v. The Queen, 1985 20 (SCC), [1985] 2 S.C.R. 592, at pp. 600-610. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on “reason and common sense”; it is not “imaginary or frivolous”; it “does not involve proof to an absolute certainty”; and it is “logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence”: Lifchus, at para. 36. The reasonable doubt instructions are all directed to describing for the jurors how sure they must be of guilt in order to convict.

29An instruction about circumstantial evidence, in contrast, alerts the jury to the dangers of the path of reasoning involved in drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence: Berger, at p. 60. This is the danger to which Baron Alderson directed his comments. And the danger he identified so long ago — the risk that the jury will “fill in the blanks” or “jump to conclusions” — has more recently been confirmed by social science research: see Berger, at pp. 52-53. This Court on occasion has noted this cautionary purpose of a circumstantial evidence instruction: see, e.g., Boucher v. The Queen, 1954 3 (SCC), [1955] S.C.R. 16, per Rand J., at p. 22; John, per Laskin J., dissenting but not on this point, at p. 813.

30It follows that in a case in which proof of one or more elements of the offence depends exclusively or largely on circumstantial evidence, it will generally be helpful to the jury to be cautioned about too readily drawing inferences of guilt. No particular language is required. Telling the jury that an inference of guilt drawn from circumstantial evidence should be the only reasonable inference that such evidence permits will often be a succinct and accurate way of helping the jury to guard against the risk of “filling in the blanks” by too quickly overlooking reasonable alternative inferences. It may be helpful to illustrate the concern about jumping to conclusions with an example. If we look out the window and see that the road is wet, we may jump to the conclusion that it has been raining. But we may then notice that the sidewalks are dry or that there is a loud noise coming from the distance that could be street-cleaning equipment, and re-evaluate our premature conclusion. The observation that the road is wet, on its own, does not exclude other reasonable explanations than that it has been raining. The inferences that may be drawn from this observation must be considered in light of all of the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense.

31I emphasize, however, that assistance to the jury about the risk of jumping to conclusions may be given in different ways and, as noted in Fleet, trial judges will provide this assistance in the manner they consider most appropriate in the circumstances: p. 549.

38Of course, the line between a “plausible theory” and “speculation” is not always easy to draw. But the basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty.

39I have found two particularly useful statements of this principle.

40The first is from an old Australian case, Martin v. Osborne (1936), 55 C.L.R. 367 (H.C.), at p. 375:

In the inculpation of an accused person the evidentiary circumstances must bear no other reasonable explanation. This means that, according to the common course of human affairs, the degree of probability that the occurrence of the facts proved would be accompanied by the occurrence of the fact to be proved is so high that the contrary cannot reasonably be supposed. [Emphasis added.]

41While this language is not appropriate for a jury instruction, I find the idea expressed in this passage — that to justify a conviction, the circumstantial evidence, assessed in light of human experience, should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternative — a helpful way of describing the line between plausible theories and speculation.

42The second is from R. v. Dipnarine, 2014 ABCA 328, 584 A.R. 138, at paras. 22 and 24-25. The court stated that “[c]ircumstantial evidence does not have to totally exclude other conceivable inferences”; that the trier of fact should not act on alternative interpretations of the circumstances that it considers to be unreasonable; and that alternative inferences must be reasonable, not just possible.

43Where the line is to be drawn between speculation and reasonable inferences in a particular case cannot be described with greater clarity than it is in these passages.

166. I shall apply these above principles of law, of course, as I conduct my analysis of the evidence in this case.

Analysis

The Purported Inadequacies of the TBPS Investigation:

167. There was much left to be desired of the TBPS investigation into the residence and the suspected criminal activity occurring inside it. The surveillance was minimal and occurred over several hours preceding the planned execution of the warrant. The descriptions of the three Black male targets were scant. I am not at all satisfied Williams met the description of any one of the targets, but he did not have to. What is critical, in my view, is where exactly he was found within the residence.

168. The focus of my assessment as to whether the case has been made out against Williams requires pinpoint analysis of who was located where and under what circumstances.

169. Undeniably, five other people were inside the residence when the search warrant was executed, amongst them, Glen and Becky Campbell, Sean Maybee, and Walter and Cheyenne Baxter. Of great significance, none of these five were in the southwest bedroom of the residence at the crucial point in time when police entered.

170. Defence counsel referred me to R. v. Grey (1996) 1996 35 (ON CA), 28 O.R. (3d) 417 to suggest occupancy is not a deciding factor. I agree; however, the facts in Grey were fundamentally different. Unlike Williams, Mr. Grey was not a ‘found in’.

171. In Grey, the appellant was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking in crack cocaine. Mr. Grey was not present when the police executed the search warrant. He testified he was a common visitor to the home searched by police, but denied he knew the drugs found inside a baggie in the cassette player in the master bedroom were his. The trial judge disbelieved him and found him guilty largely on the basis that he was a frequent occupant and overnight guest of the co-accused homeowner, his girlfriend.

172. Laskin J.A., in overturning the conviction and substituting a verdict of not guilty, emphasized that “there was no direct evidence of knowledge, the drugs were hidden, the apartment was rented by the co-accused, other persons frequented the apartment, and the appellant was not a permanent occupant.”

173. Although Grey bears similarities to the case before me, it is readily distinguishable on its facts. Mr. Grey had not been to his girlfriend’s apartment for the entire weekend preceding the search of the apartment conducted by police. In stark contrast, Williams was present in a room dedicated to the processing of illegal drugs for sale when police entered to execute the search warrant. The other individuals, Mr. and Ms. Campbell, Mr. and Ms. Baxter, and Mr. Maybee were not.

174. The defence also put before me R. v. Do et al, 2003 24750 (ONCA).

175. In Do, the facts were that Mr. Do’s co-accused, a Mr. Vo, was found in an apartment where Mr. Do and Mr. Vo had been witnessed having a ‘hand to hand’ exchange prior to Mr. Do’s arrest in a vehicle following that interaction. Inside the centre console of the vehicle, police found 13 gms. of heroin. Based on the strength of those occurrences and other details obtained from a confidential informant, police obtained a search warrant to enter the apartment where the encounter between Do and Vo played out. Inside, the officers found 110 gms. of heroin concealed in a pair of jeans in a laundry basket.

176. In setting out the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the 110 gms. of heroin, Weiler J.A., for the unanimous, three-member panel of the Court of Appeal for Ontario, specified the following:

(a) the informant’s information was that a young Asian person of about twenty with short dark hair was selling heroin out of apartment 905 in the Westlodge apartment. Vo had a blond streak in his hair and his description did not match the description given by the informant in this respect.

(b) the appellant was in possession of a key to the apartment upon his arrest but did not reside at apartment 905;

(c) there was positive evidence both from the appellant and independent sources that other persons rented apartment 905;

(d) the appellant was only visiting the apartment;

(e) there were no documents connecting the appellant to the apartment;

(f) there was no evidence that the appellant’s prints were on any items in the apartment;

(g) there was no evidence that the jeans in which the heroin was found belonged to Vo or would have fit him; and

(h) there was no evidence that the clothes in the laundry hamper in which the heroin was found belonged to Vo.

177. Mr. Vo testified and denied he had any knowledge of the heroin secreted in the jeans.

178. The Court of Appeal set aside the conviction registered by the trial judge, substituted a finding of not guilty and acquitted Mr. Vo. Weiler J.A. aptly pointed out at para. 24 that “the trial judge was not entitled to infer knowledge of the drugs in the apartment from the appellant’s occupancy because there was no other evidence connecting him to the drugs, other persons frequented the apartment, and the appellant was not a permanent occupant”.

179. Williams’ circumstances are substantially different. Based on the signage in the residence, Williams was found in a drug processing room where only entitled or authorized personnel were allowed. That was not at all the case for Mr. Vo.

180. For the most part, Do simply followed the reasoning employed in Grey. Accordingly, Do is of little assistance to me.

181. While the police in this case could have seized documents such as letters, and dusted items, such as scales, packaging materials, money, gloves, etc. for fingerprints, or swabbed them for possible DNA extraction, for whatever reasons, they chose not to. Nor did they seize the cellphone they believed belonged to Williams to look for incriminating texts. None of the officers testified that they looked in the purse found near the deflated air mattress. Perhaps Cst. Veneruz ought to have prepared his own Use of Force Report and not relied on his Team Leader or Sergeant to fill one out. All officers who participated in the search ought to have kept better notes of their conduct and observations inside the residence (see R. v. Rush, 2025 ONCJ 470, Jones J. at para. 103). Maybe many of these shortcomings on the part of the police can fairly be characterized as shoddy police work.

182. Alternatively, it may be budget related. I do not know. I will not speculate.

183. My task, of course, is to decide whether the circumstantial evidence as presented by the Crown against Williams at his trial is sufficient to satisfy me beyond a reasonable doubt in his guilt.

184. What I am unprepared to find, unlike my colleague, Jones J. in Rush, is that the officers intentionally failed to take investigative steps, to make one or more reports or to keep adequate notes, in an attempt to mislead this Court.

185. Another case put before me by the defence was the decision of my colleague, Greene J. in R. v. Thompson, 2013 ONCJ 299. In Thompson, the Crown called evidence at the accused’s preliminary inquiry to show that police responded to a call at a private residence in Toronto. At the front door, the attending officer heard what sounded like a female inside being hit. She was crying, and a male was yelling. Out of fear for the safety of the woman, the officer knocked, announced his presence and entered the apartment.

186. Inside the officer found the male and female in a bathroom. The man, later identified as Mr. Thompson, was arrested, handcuffed and taken to the police vehicle.

187. The woman was interviewed. Her injuries were visible. As a result, the officer began searching for “a potential weapon”. He went into the kitchen area and saw a quantity of cocaine and drug paraphernalia on a counter top. The items were not visible until he entered the kitchen area. Among the items was a quantity of cocaine weighing 73 gms. and divided into four separate bags, a scale, and four cellphones. He seized them and took them to the police station.

188. Given the Crown’s case in prosecuting the drug offences against Mr. Thompson relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, Greene J. was required to determine whether elements of the offence of possession, namely knowledge and control of the items by the accused, could be reasonably inferred.

189. In discharging the accused at his preliminary inquiry for a complete absence of knowledge and control, Greene J. emphasized that there was no admissible evidence that:

a) Mr. Thompson was a renter of the apartment,

b) the amount of time he had been inside prior to police arrival,

c) he had belongings in the apartment, or

d) he had ever entered the kitchen area.

190. Again, Thompson is vastly divergent on its facts from the case at bar. I repeat, because it warrants repeating, Williams was located in a ‘no go’ zone when the TBPS officers entered the residence. Surrounding Williams as he lay on the floor were all the trappings of drug trafficking.

191. On William’s decision to prostrate himself, I make little to nothing of the Crown argument that he was surrendering himself in some form of consciousness of guilt. Sadly, there have been too many instances in this country of things ending badly for Black men during what ought to have been innocuous, cursory dealings with police, when they offer any attitude or resistance.

192. The last of the authorities relied on by the defence was the decision of Crossin J. in R. v. Taylor, 2025, BCSC 487. Taylor is also readily distinguishable from William’s case as well.

193. In Taylor, police executed a search warrant at a residence during the early morning hours of June 4, 2020 in Nanaimo, B.C. At the time of entry, the accused was sleeping on the couch in a common area, the living room. The search revealed various drugs in numerous places within the residence including the living room.

194. Mr. Taylor testified that he was a homeless, a long-time addict and he used the residence in question as a place to buy his drugs of choice, fentanyl and crystal meth. He was permitted to sleep on the couch in the living room, which he described at points as a “flop house”, a “trap house” and a “party house”, while he was using, as did many others. He denied any knowledge or control over the subject drugs.

195. In finding the accused not guilty, Crossin J. accepted at para. 187 Mr. Taylor’s evidence that he was using the couch as a “crash site”. Furthermore, Crossin J. went on to say at para. 197:

197In any event the evidence does not allow for the inference the accused had any measure of control over the residence or the drugs, much less the control required for the purpose of finding possession.

196. This brief recitation of the facts in Taylor lays plain how different the Crown’s case against the accused was there as compared to here, bearing in mind the unique set of circumstances under which William was found at the residence on the pertinent evidence called at his trial. Williams was not found in a common area, but rather, a restricted one.

Tunnel Vision:

197. I accept Detective Constable Carson’s testimony that race played no role in his decision to charge Williams. The accused was arrested by police and prosecuted by the Crown because of the circumstances under which he was found by police at the time they executed the search warrant at the residence. The police largely ignored the other people in the residence because they were not in the southwest bedroom at that critical juncture.

198. I have seen numerous examples of how disadvantaged young Black men from southern Ontario are attracted to Thunder Bay for the opportunity to make quick money in large sums by selling illegal drugs to other disadvantaged groups, in particular, the Indigenous community. The TBPS need not turn a blind eye to the reality of what is occurring in their community for fear of allegations of racism.

199. In R. v. Ibrahim and Hamadu (2024) ONSC 6610, Fitzpatrick J. explained:

19D/C Vincent provided the issuing justice with evidence of his experience regarding drug trafficking methods in Thunder Bay at the time. While I am not entitled to substitute my views for that of the issuing justice, I assess this information as reasonable and accurate; it is consistent with expert and participant evidence heard in numerous drug trials that I have presided over in the past few years here in Thunder Bay. Drug trafficking in Thunder Bay is now extremely lucrative, and many drug dealers from Southern Ontario are attracted by the elevated price for drugs that can be obtained from sales in trap houses across the city.

20The drug trade, as described by D/C Vincent, relies on a particular business model. Out of town dealers rely on a network of trap houses, where sales are made, and safe houses, which are chosen and operated so as not to draw the attention of police or rivals. Safe houses serve to protect significant profits, and act as a storehouse for storage of larger amounts of product. The safe house is a necessary component to the drug trade, as the main participants do not ordinarily reside in Thunder Bay. This information is contained at paras. 6, 7, 8, 13, 36, 37, 38, and 41 of the ITO.

200. I am not at all persuaded that any of the TBPS members, on this occasion in this case, demonstrated a discriminatory bias towards Williams. The officers acted on what was plain to them. Williams was in the processing room of a trap house. End of story.

The Relevant and Compelling Circumstantial Evidence:

201. In assessing the evidence called at Williams’ trial, I am guided by instructive, ‘first principles of law’ set out by Corrick J. in R. v. Rebelo, 2016 ONSC at paras. 91 to 98 inclusive as follows:

91My analysis of the evidence in this trial is governed by some fundamental principles that apply to all criminal trials.

92The first is that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rebelo is guilty of the offences charged. This standard is a high one. It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Rebelo is probably guilty. Proof of probable guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

93The second is the presumption of innocence. This presumption stays with Mr. Rebelo throughout the case. It is only defeated if and when Crown counsel satisfies the court beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of the crimes charged. The presumption of innocence also means that he does not have to testify, present evidence, or prove anything in this case. Mr. Rebelo does not have to prove that he is innocent of these crimes.

94I am required to make my decision based on the whole of the evidence. I can accept some, none or all of the evidence of any witness.

95The issue in dispute in this case is whether the Crown has proved the element of possession beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no dispute between the parties that the 715 grams of marijuana found in the duffle bag in the garage and the 407 grams of cocaine found in the garage were possessed for the purpose of trafficking.

96All three forms of possession defined in s. 4(3) of the Criminal Code are in issue in this case: personal possession, joint possession and constructive possession. Proof of possession, personal, joint, or constructive, requires the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rebelo had both knowledge and control of the marijuana and the cocaine discovered in the garage. For the purpose of constructive possession, the right to grant or withhold consent is sufficient to prove control. In the case of joint possession, Mr. Rebelo’s consent must also be established.

97Knowledge and control may be established by either direct or circumstantial evidence. In this case there is both direct evidence by way of Mr. Rebelo’s utterances to Officer Small and circumstantial evidence.

98In assessing the circumstantial evidence, I bear in mind that if there are reasonable inferences that arise from all of the evidence other than the guilt of Mr. Rebelo, the Crown will have failed to have met its burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court is required to consider the entire body of evidence rather than scrutinize each piece in isolation to determine whether there is a reasonable inference that can be drawn that is inconsistent with the guilt of Mr. Rebelo.

202. Helpful as well are the passages set out by Sharma J. at paras. 25 to 27 and 114 to 120 inclusive in R. v. Caleb, 2025 ONSC 1947.

203. Turning my mind to the complete ensemble of the evidence, I find that Williams was not a stranger to the residence when police entered it to execute the search warrant. He was in a room, described by many of the police witnesses called to testify at his trial, as the southwest bedroom. In the normal course of human affairs, if the residence were occupied by a traditional family with two children, for example, the southwest bedroom may well have been the master bedroom. The other two rooms, described by police witnesses as the southeast and middle bedrooms, would likely have been children’s bedrooms.

204. However, I accept the evidence of Detective Constable Davis that the residence was configured in the common style of a ‘trap house’. There was a doorman at the front entrance. This was no typical family home or roommates’ shared dwelling. An entire room in the residence was dedicated to processing illegal drugs for sale, specifically fentanyl and crack cocaine. The drugs found were of a sizeable amount. They would not be possessed by a user. They were possessed for the purpose of sale. They were being trafficked.

205. When Constable Veneruz entered the southwest bedroom, he noticed a sign warning against unauthorized entry. Detective Constable Carson saw two such signs. Only certain individuals were permitted to be in that inner sanctum for good reason. That is where the drugs, and cash from their sale, were safeguarded.

206. The signs of drug trafficking were obvious and in plain view when the police officers involved, Constable Veneruz for the Emergency Task Force first, and later the members of the Intelligence Unit of the TBPS, Detective Constable Carson, Detective Constable Morgan, etc. entered the southwest bedroom. There were packaging materials, baggies and tinfoil, on a worktable. There was scale and latex gloves close by. The tools of the drug trafficking trade were readily apparent to the officers.

207. Without much effort, Detective Constable Carson was able to peer down into the stacked end tables and see the cash. Later, the knotted sock with the illegal drugs inside it was discovered too in the end tables by police.

208. Of course, the drugs and cash were not left in the open. I can safely infer that the drugs would be hidden from view to prevent an easy rip, or to stymie easy detection by authorities conducting a search of the residence.

209. The drugs and cash were just a short distance away from Williams, were he to be seated at a chair in front of the table. His jacket was off. He was clearly intending to stay a while in that room. He was not a casual guest.

210. Of great importance, he was in that room alone. He must have been authorized or entitled to be in that southwest bedroom. He enjoyed that special status.

211. Others were in the residence. The Campbells, the Baxters and Mr. Maybee may have been users/traffickers. However, they were not found in that southwest bedroom, the drug processing station, when the search warrant was executed. They were not permitted to be in that area of the residence. The two signs posted on the wall leading to the southwest bedroom spoke loud and clear to anyone who had the notion of walking down the hallway to the curtain which covered its entry. They would do so at their own peril.

212. In any event, the Crown need not demonstrate that Williams had exclusive possession of the southwest bedroom. (see R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560, Jamal J.A. as he then was at para. 22) Likely, he was working in conjunction with other traffickers, but the point is, he was physically present in that room when police swiftly descended upon the residence to neutralize the occupants, to look for what the search warrant authorized, and to preserve the destruction of evidence.

Conclusion

213. Upon my assessment of the totality of the evidence, I have no plausible basis to deduce how anyone other than Williams was the person responsible for control of the room where the processing of the illegal substances within it took place, when the TBPS executed the search warrant. He was ‘on shift’. He knew where the drugs were located. He was aware of the stash of the proceeds from their sale in the makeshift chest of drawers within which both money and contraband were located by police.

214. For the above reasons, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that he was well aware of where the drugs and cash were, and could handle both at his leisure in the southwest bedroom on March 15, 2023. I must therefore find him guilty of all offences with which he was charged.