Court File and Parties

Ontario Court of Justice Date: 2024-06-03 Court File No.: Niagara Region 998 22 S2003

Between:

His Majesty The King

— And —

Arthur Michaud

Before: Justice J. De Filippis

Heard on: March 19 – 20, 2024 Reasons for Judgment released on: June 3, 2024

Counsel: Mr. D. Anger, for the Crown Mr. M. Evans, for the accused

De Filippis, J.:

Introduction

[1] The defendant was charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime. The offences are said to have occurred on April 25, 2020, in the City of St. Catharines and arise after the execution of a search warrant at 70 Currie Street. I heard from three police officers as well as the defendant. I received over 50 photographs of the home and items found therein.

[2] Much of the prosecution evidence is not in dispute. Date, time, jurisdiction, the identity of the defendant, and the fact that he resided at the home in question are not in issue. The items seized at the home, including the nature and quantity of the drug and the amount of money is admitted by the Defence. Two notebooks were seized. It is agreed that the large one contains a “drug debt list”. The only substantial disagreement between the parties relates to the interpretation of observations made by police before the warrant was executed.

[3] The parties agree that someone is guilty of the offences. The Crown claims that person is the defendant. The Defence asserts this has not been proven and points to another suspect.

[4] These reasons explain why I find the defendant guilty.

Evidence

[5] In April 2020, the police began an investigation into the activities of the defendant and Stephanie Steinhoff. They conducted surveillance on 70 Currie Street. The home has two doors; one on the side and the other at the back. The back door leads to a basement apartment occupied by the defendant.

[6] On April 11 at 7:23 pm, officers observed a white female walk to the rear of the residence at 70 Currie Street, leave one minute later, and enter a nearby house. After another minute the same woman walked back to the rear of 70 Currie Street. Two minutes later she left again. At 8:16 pm another woman walked to the rear of the residence and quickly came out again. Shortly after 10 pm, a pickup truck arrived at the home. Two women left the vehicle and went to the back of the residence. At 10:23 pm, the woman who had visited earlier at 8:16 pm arrived at the residence. Again, she left within minutes of arrival. At 11:43 pm, the defendant was observed to leave the residence followed by the two woman who had arrived in the pickup truck. They were followed to a residence in the City of Welland. At 1 am, the defendant returned to his home.

[7] On April 17 at 9:25 am, the defendant was observed leaving a nearby convenience store and go to the rear of 70 Currie Street. A woman arrived soon after. At 10:39 am, the defendant left the home and walked to another one at 65 Currie Street. While standing outside, the defendant received an object from a man who walked up to him and then walked away. The defendant returned to his home. In the next two hours, the police observed several people, some in motor vehicles, go to the rear of 70 Currie Street and leave within minutes.

[8] On April 25 at 11:42 am, a woman in a Dodge Ram motor vehicle arrived at 70 Currie Street. She went to the rear of the residence. Several minutes later, she returned to the vehicle, followed by the defendant who was carrying a laundry basket. The vehicle was followed to a laundromat. At 12:22 pm, the parties drove to a parking lot adjacent to a church. The driver of the vehicle was Ms. Steinhoff. The defendant sat in the front passenger seat. A man on a bicycle arrived and passed green bills to the defendant and received an object from the defendant. The defendant put the bills in his pocket. He walked to a nearby residence, entered, and exited two minutes later. He returned to the vehicle parked in the church lot. At 12:30 pm, a man approached that vehicle and put his hand in the passenger window and immediately left. One minute later, the vehicle left the parking lot.

[9] At 2:50 PM, the defendant was arrested at Pearson Park. He was told that a search warrant would be executed at 70 Currie Street. The defendant provided the police with the key code to the rear door of the residence. Ms. Steinhoff was also arrested this day after being stopped driving her motor vehicle. She was found to be in possession of $860 in her purse. A small amount of crystal methamphetamine was found in the console of the Dodge Ram.

[10] The search of the defendant’s residence began at 3:05 pm. The numerous photographs taken by police show that there are three rooms; a combination living room and kitchen, a washroom, and a bedroom. A shower curtain hangs in the living room. The home was in disarray. Clothing, household products, and garbage was everywhere - on furniture, counters, and floor.

[11] The police found and seized the following items:

• Mail sent to the defendant at the address in question.
• Two “dime bags” with hearts [heart baggies] imprinted on them on the floor.
• A digital weigh scale, scoop, and mirror, all of which contained white powder, on a coffee table.
• A pink backpack found in the bedroom that contained heart baggies, and a scale.
• Two notebooks, the larger of which, contains several pages that record drug debts. Where, exactly, these were found in the apartment is not clear.
• Two Tupperware containers under a couch in the living room. One container had two heart baggies with white powder and the other had a Ziplock bag with white powder.
• A wallet containing $390, on the same couch.

[12] The white powder in the two Tupperware containers tested as crystal methamphetamine. The white powder on the digital scale, scoop, and mirror was not sent to Health Canada for analysis. The weight of the drug in Ziplock bag bulk is 82.1 grams. The two heart baggies contained 6.1 and 6.5 grams. The total amount of crystal methamphetamine is 98.3 grams.

[13] The defendant is 34 years old. He was 30 years old at the time of his arrest for the present charges. He was born and raised in Dunnville and came from the foster home system. He has been addicted to illicit drugs. This began in his mid 20s when he was living a transient lifestyle in Toronto for the preceding 10 years. At this time, he was using crystal methamphetamine and MDA. He has been sober for the past two years. He is in receipt of social assistance payments and works in landscaping part time. The defendant suffers from pre-natal brain damage and experiences anxiety and manic depression.

[14] The defendant acknowledged that he was residing at the basement apartment, accessed by the rear door at 70 Currie Street at the time of these events. After his arrest for the present charges, he was evicted from that apartment. He was transient for a period and met his current partner. She is pregnant with their child, and they now have stable housing.

[15] The defendant testified that other people resided with him from time to time. He put up a curtain in the living room to create a private space for such guests. The defendant slept in the separate bedroom at the back of the unit. Some time before the search warrant was executed a man named Ian Beale (also known as Charger) and his girlfriend came to live with him. He said that “this is where the crystal meth came from, I was using at the time”.

[16] In April 2020, the defendant met Ms. Steinhoff and she moved into his apartment. The defendant said she was “having problems with her boyfriend, so I let her stay” and added, “she wouldn’t leave”. Their relationship was not a romantic one, but they both used crystal methamphetamine. She occupied the area behind the curtain and slept on the couch, under which the Tupperware containers with the contraband was found by police. The defendant added that “the stuff [found by police] on the coffee table is hers” and explained that he assumed this as “they are not mine”.

[17] The defendant denied possession of all drugs found in the apartment, the scales, the heart baggies, the pink backpack, the notebook with the drug debt list, and the wallet with the money.

[18] The defendant noted that Ms. Steinhoff owned the Dodge Ram that he was observed to be a passenger in when the police observed two people approach the passenger door window. He testified that the first person was “Doc and his partner is Laura”. Doc had reached into the vehicle to give the defendant money for a cell phone. Later, in cross-examination, he stated that he received $80.00 from Doc. The second person was a friend who had just stopped to say hello.

[19] The defendant testified that he is not aware if Ms. Steinhoff was selling drugs. He is not a drug dealer. He was not helping her sell drugs. He did not allow her to store drugs in his apartment. He added that Ms. Steinhoff was a random visitor, who appeared from nowhere, asked to stay, and would not leave.

[20] The defendant confirmed his full name is Arthur James Michaud. The Crown produced the photograph of the drug debt lists in the large notebook and pointed to the initials “AJM”. The defendant conceded this refers to him and said it is not his notebook or writing. The debt list shows that “Doc” owes $650. When asked to comment, the defendant said he assumes the notes were made by Ms. Steinhoff.

[21] The defendant acknowledged that he never saw Ms. Steinhoff with a bicycle and that he owned one. He was shown a reference to a bicycle and bicycle racks in other parts of the large notebook. It also includes the name “Charger”. The defendant could not say if Ms. Steinhoff knew Charger. He could not explain why this book, containing a drug debt list, also includes his initials, a debt owed by his friends Charger and Doc and references to bicycles.

[22] The defendant was asked “how could you not see evidence of crystal meth in this residence”. He replied, “I respect other people’s privacy, whatever is in that living room is not mine, other than the furniture”. He added that the mirror and scale with residue on the coffee table in the living room, as well as the coffee table itself, are not his. He clarified that he did not mean to include the coffee table when he said the furniture was his. The defendant also clarified that the television was not his. He assumes Ms. Steinhoff brought the television. He did not comment on where the coffee table came from.

[23] One of the photographs taken by the police show the pink backpack in the defendant’s bedroom. Other photographs show heart baggies and a scale and mirror with residue from that backpack. When asked to comment on this, the defendant replied that the items must have been moved to his bedroom.

Submissions

[24] The Defence position is that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge and control of the illicit drugs and paraphernalia found in his home. Counsel added that even if I find that the surveillance evidence is proof of drug dealing, this does not mean the defendant was in possession of the drugs found in the Tupperware containers under the couch. Ms. Steinhoff was sleeping on that couch.

[25] Defence counsel points out that the defendant was not found to be personally in possession of illicit drugs or money and that there is another suspect for the contraband found in his apartment, namely, Ms. Steinhoff. In this regard, counsel noted that Ms. Steinhoff was found with crystal methamphetamine and money when she was arrested.

[26] One of the notebooks was found in a pink backpack. Defence counsel argued that “even in modern society [this] would suggest a female owner”. Counsel added that although the photographs taken by police show this bag to be in the defendant’s bedroom, there is no testimony about where it was found. The Defence noted that the defendant’s first name was misspelled in one of the notebooks. This suggests it was not his.

[27] The Crown argues that, apart from the testimony of the defendant, there can be no doubt that he is in possession (for the purpose of trafficking) of the items found in his home, some in plain view. Counsel also argues that the defendant’s evidence should be rejected as fanciful. For example, the defendant explained the quick meeting in the parking lot in which a man, identified as Doc, gave something to the defendant sitting in the passenger seat of the Dodge Ram, as a cash transaction for a cell phone. Yet, the name Doc appears in what is agreed to be a drug debt list. The defendant denied knowledge or ownership of the debt list but there are references in the notebook that must be linked to him.

[28] The Crown submits that, even assuming Ms. Steinhoff is the owner of the drugs found under the couch, it cannot be believed the defendant was not aware of contraband, having regard to the presence of drug paraphernalia, some with residue, in plain view in a small basement apartment. As such, he is also in control of the drugs as the tenant and is jointly in possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Analysis

[29] The Crown must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt if the defendant is to be found guilty. This means that if the defendant has called evidence, there must be an acquittal: (i) where the testimony is believed, (ii) where the testimony is not believed, but leaves the trier of fact in reasonable doubt, (iii) where testimony is not believed and does not leave a reasonable doubt, but the remaining evidence fails to convince, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty: R. v. W.D., [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742. The application of this principle does not mean the defendant's evidence is to be viewed in isolation, divorced from the context or other evidence in the case: R. v. F. (R.D.), 2004 ONCA 500.

[30] As noted at the outset, much of the Crown case is not controversial. Just over three ounces of crystal methamphetamine was hidden under a couch in the defendant’s small apartment. This included two heart baggies each containing just over 6 grams of the product. Drug paraphernalia, including, numerous empty heart baggies, scale, mirror, and scoop were in plain view in the apartment – some in the defendant’s bedroom. The scale and mirror had white powder residue. Also found in the apartment was a notebook containing a drug debt list. Surveillance conducted on the apartment and defendant shortly before the execution of the search warrant show several individuals coming to the apartment and departing within minutes. The defendant and Ms. Steinhoff were observed in a motor vehicle in which two individuals approached the defendant for a quick exchange. Such meetings are consistent with drug trafficking and, having regard to the items found in the defendant’s apartment, I have no doubt about this. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from prosecution evidence is that the defendant was in possession for the purpose of trafficking in the methamphetamine hidden under the couch. That he may have been in point possession for the purpose of trafficking with Ms. Steinhoff is unlikely given the drug debt list. In any event, this would not affect a finding of guilt. However, this does not end the inquiry as the defendant testified.

[31] I agree with the Crown that the defendant’s evidence must be rejected. His denial of knowledge of the incriminating evidence in plain view in his apartment cannot be believed. There is no basis to accept his explanation for the presence of some such evidence in his bedroom. In this regard, I do not attach any significance to the fact that the backpack is pink in colour. The defendant’s plea of ignorance about the notebook containing the drug debt list is contradicted by the references in other parts of that book that relate to him, including the names of two friends, one of whom – Doc – is found in the debt list itself. Doc is the person seen to participate in the quick transaction with the defendant while the latter was seated in a motor vehicle.

[32] The Crown has met its high burden of proof. The defendant is guilty as charged.

Released: June 3, 2024 Signed: Justice J. De Filippis