COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO
CITATION: R. v. Cumor, 2016 ONCA 410
DATE: 20160526
DOCKET: C58013
Laskin, Gillese and Roberts JJ.A.
BETWEEN
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
and
Hasan Mohamed Cumor
Appellant
David Quayat and Leo Rayner, for the appellant
Bradley Reitz, for the respondent
Heard and released orally: May 19, 2016
On appeal from the convictions entered on August 1, 2012 by Justice Robert T. Weseloh of the Ontario Court of Justice.
ENDORSEMENT
[1] Police received information from reliable confidential informants concerning cocaine trafficking in Owen Sound. As a result, they conducted surveillance on Ryan Desroches and Trina Wright, and obtained a production order to examine their text messages. They established that a person who went by “Ali” was their supplier.
[2] After receiving a tip from the confidential informer that Ali was to deliver cocaine to the Desroches and Wright residence on November 30, 2011, the police arrested the appellant without a warrant when he arrived at the residence driving an orange Ford. The orange Ford had been seen in front of the residence on earlier occasions when text messages and surveillance indicated that Wright and Desroches were dealing in cocaine.
[3] Although an initial search of Ali failed to turn up anything, a later search of the police cruiser where he had been sitting, after arrest, revealed a bag of cocaine and marijuana.
[4] At trial, Officer Dazé gave opinion evidence relating to things such as the meaning of words used in the text messages, and the value and consumption rates of cocaine.
[5] The appellant raised three main grounds of appeal:
Did the trial judge err in finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant?
Did the trial judge err in his assessment of the identification evidence relating to the appellant? and
Did the trial judge err in admitting Officer Dazé’s opinion evidence?
Did the trial judge err in finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant?
[6] In our view, he did not.
[7] On November 30, an informer told the police that Wright and Desroches would be receiving a delivery of cocaine that evening. The police went there to watch. When the orange Ford pulled up, the police were convinced that the driver – the appellant – was there to supply Wright and Desroches with cocaine. The information provided by the confidential informants, who had proven track records, was corroborated in significant ways.
[8] We see no error in the trial judge’s determination that the arresting officer had an objectively reasonable belief that the driver of the orange Ford possessed cocaine.
Did the trial judge err in his assessment of the identification evidence relating to the appellant?
[9] The trial judge relied on Wright’s identification evidence. The appellant had stayed with Wright on a number of weekends. The trial judge found her identification evidence to be strong and compelling. There is no basis on which to interfere with his treatment of the identification evidence.
Did the trial judge err in admitting Officer Dazé’s opinion evidence?
[10] On appeal, the Crown concedes that Officer Dazé’s opinion evidence was inadmissible. However, it urges this court to find that the inadmissible evidence occasioned no substantial wrong and no miscarriage of justice.
[11] We accept this submission. On the face of the text messages alone, it was clear that the appellant was supplying product to Desroches for sale to customers. Desroches testified that the product was cocaine, and he also provided testimony about the meaning of a number of the text messages. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that the verdict would necessarily have been the same.
Disposition
[12] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
“John Laskin J.A.”
“E.E. Gillese J.A.”
“L.B Roberts J.A.”