ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
DATE: March 21, 2025
COURT FILE No.: 0211-998-24-21000816-01 / 0211-998-24-21000264-00
BETWEEN:
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
— AND —
LUKE ADAM MARTIN
Before Justice Robert S. Gee
Heard on March 10 and 12, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on March 21, 2025
Counsel:
V. Fedorchuk — counsel for the Crown
E. Angevine — counsel for the accused Luke Martin
INTRODUCTION
[1] On January 24, 2024, police searched a 2012 Ford Escape parked at 33 Park Avenue East, Brantford, which was linked to the accused, Luke Martin.
[2] Inside the trunk of the vehicle, officers discovered a blue Walmart shopping bag containing 442.1 grams of methamphetamine and 1,526.9 grams of fentanyl.
[3] As a result of this discovery, Mr. Martin is facing two charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
[4] Mr. Martin elected to have his trial in the Ontario Court of Justice and evidence was heard over two days, on March 10 and 12, 2025. Issues such as the nature of the substances seized, continuity of the substances, and that whoever possessed those substances did so for the purposes of trafficking were all conceded by the defence. Mr. Martin’s defence to the charges was that he had no knowledge of the substances in the Ford Escape. He argued the drugs were possessed by his former co-accused, Brandon Pfeiffer.
[5] The following reasons will explain why I find the Crown has proven that the accused was in possession of the methamphetamine and fentanyl located in the Ford Escape and as such, why findings of guilt will be made.
FACTS
[6] Found in the Ford Escape in addition to the drugs were a number of firearms. Mr. Martin and Mr. Pfeiffer were jointly charged with the possession of the firearms, as well as a stolen Ford F150 and the Escape which was also alleged to have been stolen. On February 26, 2025, which was to be the start of their joint trial, Mr. Pfeiffer pled guilty to the possession of the firearms, the theft of the F150, and a number of other charges including dangerous operation and flight from police. Mr. Martin alone was charged in relation to the drugs.
[7] At the outset of trial on March 10, 2025, Mr. Martin pled guilty to the theft of the F150, possession of break-in instruments, and breach of probation. Sentencing on those charges was delayed until the completion of his trial on the drug charges. The facts surrounding the theft of the Ford Escape and the F150 and the police discovery of the drugs are not much in dispute, given the pleas on the theft and firearm related charges. The only issue to decide in the trial is if the Crown can prove that Mr. Martin possessed the drugs.
[8] The following paragraphs setting out the facts come from agreed statements of facts filed by the parties and in court testimony of witnesses. The Crown called three witnesses: Michael McCrory, the owner of the Ford Escape, and two Brantford police officers involved in the arrest of Mr. Martin, Andre Gudgeon, and Richard Ciotti. The only witness for the defence was Mr. Pfeiffer. Mr. Martin chose not to testify, though the statement he gave to police on his arrest was admitted at trial on consent.
[9] On Wednesday, January 24, 2024, Susan White was inside her home on Avedisian Street, in Brantford, when she looked out her window and noticed a dark coloured Ford SUV pull up in front of their home. She turned away for a few seconds to put something in the garbage and when she looked back, she observed her husband’s 2020 Ford F150 being driven out of their driveway and the same dark coloured Ford SUV following it down the street. Ms. White did not see the driver of the Ford SUV nor their F150. At this point, it was 10:23 a.m.
[10] Richard White received a text message from his wife at approximately 10:25 a.m. asking him to call her as their F150 had just pulled out of their driveway. Mr. White began to immediately track his F150 on the vehicle manufacturer application on his phone.
[11] At approximately 10:27 a.m., he called police to report the theft of his motor vehicle. He remained on the phone with 911 providing information as he received updated GPS locations from the app. He provided the 911 operator with tracking information as it made its way through the City of Brantford. The last location that Mr. White received from the app was 34 Park Avenue East before it stopped updating.
[12] At approximately 10:32 a.m., Constable Milmine of the Brantford Police observed the Ford F150 travelling eastbound on South Street and crossing Murray Street onto Park Ave East. He also observed a black motor vehicle following directly behind the Ford F150. Officer Milmine was able to locate the Ford F150 approximately one minute later at 33 Park Avenue East, in the Sonoco Canada Corporation parking lot. At this time, Officer Milmine observed a black 2012 Ford Escape idling at the rear of the parking lot, nosed in and directly beside the Ford F150, which was also nosed in and idling. Officer Milmine used his marked police cruiser to block both vehicles as there was a barrier blocking them from going forward.
[13] Upon blocking in both vehicles, Officer Milmine observed a male, later identified as Mr. Martin wearing black latex gloves standing between both vehicles next to the driver’s side door of the Ford F150 and outside the passenger side door of the Ford Escape.
[14] Upon approach, the Ford F150 fled striking Officer Milmine. It then left the parking lot at a high rate of speed. This occurred just as Officer Gudgeon was arriving. As the F150 made its escape, it clipped Officer Gudgeon’s cruiser. Officer Gudgeon assisted Officer Milmine, who was not seriously injured when struck by the F150, in apprehending Mr. Martin who was arrested after a brief struggle.
[15] The following items were found in the Ford Escape. On the front passenger seat was a blue Bud Light bag containing various tools capable of being used to break and enter motor vehicles and a black purse containing several key fobs for various motor vehicles.
[16] Inside a beige duffel bag on the rear, driver’s side seat, police located a Winchester 1300 Defender model 12 gauge pump action shotgun missing the stock, and a Winchester, Model SXP 12 gauge pump action shotgun. This firearm had 5 shotgun shells in the magazine and the police took steps to make it safe. Also found was a Henry Repeating Arms, Golden Boy model .22, a loaded ammunition belt containing 39, 12 gauge shotgun shells, and a black pistol style magazine, which is a prohibited device as defined in s. 84 of the Criminal Code.
[17] Located in a backpack in the rear of the Ford Escape was a conductive energy weapon, also a prohibited device as defined in s. 84 of the Criminal Code.
[18] In the trunk of the Escape, inside a blue Walmart shopping bag, police located a large quantity of various suspected illegal substances. These later were weighed and analyzed to be 442.1 grams of methamphetamine and 1,526.9 grams of fentanyl.
[19] The estimated street value of 442.1 grams of the methamphetamine in the City of Brantford in 2024 was between $44,210.00 and $88,420.00 if sold by point which is 0.1 gram, $53,052.00 if sold by the gram, and $10,610.00 if sold by the kilogram.
[20] The estimated street value of the fentanyl in the City of Brantford in 2024 was $305,380.00 if sold by point, $351,187.00 if sold by the gram, and $22,903.00 if sold by the kilogram. Police also seized multiple empty Ziplock bags and two digital weigh scales.
[21] As mentioned earlier, Mr. Pfeiffer was called to testify by the defence. He stated that he and Mr. Martin had been friends for a long time. At the time, Mr. Pfeiffer had a significant criminal record including two separate convictions for drug trafficking and firearm offences that netted him penitentiary sentences each time. In addition to that, while he was committing these offences in Brantford in January 2024, he was facing further drug trafficking charges from Kitchener, Ontario.
[22] In fact, he had entered guilty pleas in Kitchener to those charges and had negotiated a release on bail for 30 days so he could put his affairs in order before starting what would then be his third penitentiary sentence. However, he stated he panicked and failed to appear for his sentencing because he did not have his affairs in order yet and had not put together enough money for his family to survive on while he was in jail. As such, by January 24, 2024, when these incidents took place, there would have been a warrant out for his arrest.
[23] In his testimony, he stated this day he was actively trying to do both, put his affairs in order, and attempting to get money for his family. He was putting his affairs in order by starting the process of moving out of his residence on Brock Street in Brantford, across from Mr. McCrory where he had been renting for the past year and a half. To this end he stated Mr. McCrory let him borrow his Ford Escape. He had also arranged to borrow an F150 from a friend he had met at the methadone clinic whose name he couldn't recall. The plan was he would borrow this F150, return to his residence on Brock Street, load it and presumably the Escape, with his belongings and move them to his girlfriend’s place in Hamilton for her to keep while he was in jail.
[24] In order to provide his family with a financial nest egg to rely on while he was jailed, his plan was to return to selling drugs.
[25] Mr. Pfeiffer claimed that the drugs and firearms found in the Ford Escape belonged solely to him and he never told Mr. Martin about them, because he knew Mr. Martin had a substance abuse problem and feared he might steal or use them. Mr. Martin’s involvement this day was, according to Mr. Pfeiffer, only to help him move.
[26] The plans for the day started to fall apart when they arrived at the house of the friend to borrow the F150 and it would not start. As they were leaving, Mr. Pfeiffer said he saw Mr. White’s F150 nearby and since he knew how to steal an F150, they stopped, Mr. Pfeiffer jumped out of the Escape, and he stole Mr. White’s F150. He was driving it back toward his residence, followed by Mr. Martin in the Escape in an attempt to salvage their plan to move that day, when that plan unravelled upon the arrival of the police. When the police showed up, he again panicked and fled, leaving behind Mr. Martin and the Escape full of his guns and drugs.
[27] Although he did not testify, as mentioned earlier, Mr. Martin’s videotaped statement to the police was admitted on consent. In it he stated the Ford Escape was borrowed from a guy across the street. He said he was asked to go in the Escape to pick up another truck. When asked who he was with, at times he refused to say and at others he said he barely knew them or didn’t know. He also denied having any knowledge of the guns or drugs in the Escape. He was asked to go pick up a truck and that was the extent of his involvement, he was unaware of any guns or drugs.
THE LAW
[28] The evidence the Crown relies on to support the inference Mr. Martin had knowledge and control of the drugs in the Ford Escape is circumstantial. In such a case, in order to make a finding of guilt, I must be satisfied that the accused's guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence. If there are reasonable inferences other than guilt, the Crown's evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, at paragraphs 35 and 55.
[29] In this case, the inference available other than guilt argued by the defence is that Mr. Martin had no knowledge of the drugs in the Ford Escape. The evidence supportive of that comes from Mr. Pfeiffer’s testimony and Mr. Martin’s denials in his police interview. My task is to determine if this is a reasonable inference. If it is, Mr. Martin is entitled to an acquittal. If it is not though, that does not necessarily lead to a conviction, I must still be satisfied that on the totality of the evidence, Mr. Martin’s guilt is the only reasonable inference available.
ANALYSIS
[30] To determine if Mr. Martin’s argument that he lacked knowledge of the drugs is a reasonable inference, I must determine if I believe or, if I am left in doubt by the evidence of Mr. Pfeiffer or the denials of Mr. Martin. I have concluded I am not.
[31] Dealing first with the evidence of Mr. Pfeiffer, his narrative is entirely implausible, in many respects defies common sense and is so riddled with inconsistencies, that it is incapable of any level of belief.
[32] For instance, Mr. Pfeiffer who is now in his 30’s, started by saying that he and Mr. Martin have known each other for years, at least since High School. He first testified, even though they’ve known each other that long, Mr. Martin was unaware he was a drug dealer, notwithstanding that he had done two stints in the penitentiary for dealing drugs, and despite the fact he asked Mr. Martin to help him move since he was about to start a third. Eventually, under cross-examination, he admitted this assertion was untrue and Mr. Martin was aware of his drug dealing history. This could be described as an implausibility, that in these circumstances Mr. Martin would not know of Mr. Pfeiffer’s drug dealing past, or it could be described as an inconsistency since he later admitted he was aware, or it could perhaps most properly be characterized as an attempt to deceive or mislead the court.
[33] As well, the explanation for what he and Mr. Martin were doing that day defies logic. First, he says they borrowed the Ford Escape from Mr. McCrory. This is contradicted by Mr. McCrory who later that day reported it stolen. Both Mr. Pfeiffer and Mr. Martin allege it was borrowed and not stolen and point to the fact the keys to the Escape were with it when found by police. Whether it was stolen or not is not an issue I need to decide since it is not a charge Mr. Martin is on trial for. However, there are some inconsistencies between those involved about the Escape. Mr. McCrory stated he left the keys on a shelf inside the door to his residence. Mr. Pfeiffer says the keys were in the centre console while Mr. Martin in his statement says he found the keys above the visor.
[34] Next, Mr. Pfeiffer stated they left his Brock Street residence in the Escape to go pick up the F150 he had arranged to borrow. It was only when they arrived to pick it up and found it would not start that the decision was made to steal Mr. White’s F150. One of the items though located in the Escape was a bag of tools capable of being used to break into vehicles. Mr. Martin as noted has entered a guilty plea to this charge. One must ask, if there was never an intention to steal a vehicle, why would it be necessary to take along your bag of tools needed to break into and steal vehicles?
[35] The next aspect of the narrative that completely defies logic given the purpose for which Mr. Pfeiffer said they were out that day, is why, if he’s telling the truth, would he bring his drugs and guns along with him to pick up a truck he was borrowing and heading straight back to his house with. This was a very large quantity of drugs and a large stash of firearms. Mr. Pfeiffer even acknowledged as a drug dealer, anytime you’re out like this driving around with your drugs and guns, you’re exposing yourself to detection by the police. Detection can come in many ways, it doesn’t have to be active drug dealing, or other crime being committed, detection can result from things as simple as a traffic stop. He admitted it would be much safer, if not actively dealing, to leave your drugs and guns at your residence safely secured. According to him though, this is not what he did. He said he put them in the Escape when they left to retrieve the F150. His only explanation was that this was the day he was moving.
[36] Even that though, as pointed out by the Crown in cross-examination, didn’t make sense because other than the guns and drugs, there were very few other items in the Escape. There was plenty of room left in the Escape if the real intention was to load it for the move.
[37] Most tellingly though, were that he got two other aspects of his narrative wrong when compared to the known facts, that he wouldn't get wrong were he telling the truth. First, he said he put his beige duffel bag that contained the firearms in the trunk with the drugs. This was not though, where the duffel bag with the guns was located. As noted earlier, it was on the driver’s side back seat, not in the trunk area.
[38] The second aspect he got wrong was that he said there were two ounces of fentanyl in the blue Walmart bag. Two ounces is about 57 grams. This testimony by him is wildly inaccurate. As noted earlier there was in fact, 1,526.9 grams of fentanyl in the blue Walmart bag. Mr. Pfeiffer was off by just a point under 1,470 grams. It is inconceivable a drug dealer would be this uninformed about the quantity of fentanyl he had in his possession.
[39] I find it is likely Mr. Pfeiffer was aware of the presence of guns and drugs in the Ford Escape. His testimony though that it was in the exclusive possession of him, unbeknownst to Mr. Martin, is wholly unbelievable.
[40] I have also determined Mr. Martin’s denial of any knowledge of the presence of the drugs and guns in the Escape is not believable. It is clear from his interview he was reluctant to answer police questions. He indicated his counsel before the interview advised him to not speak to the police. As the interview went on, he chose to answer some questions and others he chose not to answer. He has an absolute right to do this, choose to answer some questions and not others. It would be improper for me to hold against him the fact he chose to remain silent on some of what was asked of him. To do so would render the protection he is afforded by the Charter illusory. However, that’s not what he did. He chose to answer some of the questions. For instance, when asked the name of his friend that asked him to go pick up the truck, instead of saying nothing or that he wasn’t answering, he chose to say that he didn’t know these people well and that he didn’t know them at all. When he does choose to answer, I'm entitled to assess the veracity of what he says and, in this instance, it is clear his claim to not know who it was is simply untrue.
[41] Also, at another point he said there were two to three other people with them for this adventure and again, that is simply not true. For these reasons alone, I would not believe his denials in his interview to not know the drugs and guns were in the Escape.
[42] In his statement Mr. Martin admitted being the driver of the Escape. This gave him control of the Escape and a measure of control over its contents. Another reason to not believe his claim of lack of knowledge of the guns and drugs is that the items were not particularly well hidden in the vehicle. Officer Gudgeon testified the beige duffel bag was not closed and he was able to see the stock of one of the firearms simply by looking through the window of the Escape. Obviously, Mr. Martin would have been able to see the firearm equally as easily as Officer Gudgeon did.
[43] The drugs too, even though they were in the Walmart bag, they were not particularly well concealed and the bag itself was not closed. Any quick look in the bag would have revealed to the viewer the drugs inside.
[44] In addition to all these reasons though, the most compelling reason to disbelieve Mr. Martin’s claim to ignorance of the drugs and guns, is simply the sheer size of them. The duffel bag was large, open and there were several firearms inside, but it is the quantity of the drugs that belie any notion Mr. Martin did not know of them.
[45] As noted, the defence has suggested a reasonable inference inconsistent with guilt is that the guns and drugs were placed there by Mr. Pfeiffer without the knowledge of Mr. Martin. For reasons already explained, I have found this is not a reasonable inference on the facts. That leaves only two other inferences, the guns and drugs were in the possession of Mr. Martin, or were placed there by some other unknown person, without the knowledge of Mr. Martin.
[46] This unknown person theory though is also not reasonable. There was no evidence that the duffel bag with the guns and the Walmart bag with the drugs was in the Escape when they either borrowed or stole it from Mr. McCrory. Even the defence conceded pointing the finger at Mr. McCrory was not reasonable.
[47] Although the time when they came into possession of the Escape wasn’t explicit, the evidence suggests there was not much time between when Mr. Martin and Mr. Pfeiffer came into its possession, the theft of Mr. White’s F150, and the ultimate apprehension of Mr. Martin by the police. The window of time available for someone to put the bags of guns and drugs in the Escape without Mr. Martin’s knowledge is practically non-existent.
[48] Further to this, is the fact when Mr. Martin was arrested, he was wearing black, latex gloves. Even though it was January, latex gloves are not worn for warmth. In this context, the reasons for wearing latex gloves would be limited. It would be to avoid leaving fingerprints when engaging in criminal activity or perhaps as a safety precaution when handling large quantities of a deadly drug like fentanyl.
[49] The most compelling reason to disbelieve Mr. Martin’s denials though is the sheer quantity and in turn the value of the drugs. The fentanyl was worth just over $350,000.00 and the methamphetamine was worth slightly more than $88,000.00. That’s drugs worth a total of approximately $438,000.00. It is more than a reasonable inference that such a valuable quantity of drugs would not be entrusted to anyone who did not know the nature of the contents of the bag they came in. See: R. v. Bains, 2015 ONCA 677, [2015] O.J. No. 5191 paragraph 157.
CONCLUSION
[50] In this case, for all the reasons stated above, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Martin’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence. There is no other reasonable inference, inconsistent with guilt based on the evidence or lack of evidence here. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt Mr. Martin had knowledge of the presence of the firearms, fentanyl and methamphetamine in the Ford Escape and that he as well had control over these items. As such, findings of guilt will be made on both charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking he is facing.
Released: March 21, 2025
Signed: Justice Robert S. Gee