Court File and Parties
Court File No.: 4911-998-24-91103214-00 Date: October 3, 2025 Ontario Court of Justice Central East - Newmarket
Between:
Her Majesty the King
— and —
Terry Huang
Before: Justice M. Townsend
Heard on: June 9, 2025, and June 10, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released: October 3, 2025
Counsel
L. Jakobson — counsel for the Crown
D. Rechtshaffen — counsel for the accused Terry Huang
TOWNSEND J.:
Charges
[1] Mr. Terry Huang stands charged on the following counts:
Count #1 – On or about the 3rd day of April in the year 2024 at the city of Markham in the Regional Municipality of York did possess a substance, namely cocaine, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Count #2 – On or about the 3rd day of April in the year 2024, at the City of Markham, in the Regional Municipality of York, did possess a substance, namely ketamine, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Count #5 – On or about the 3rd day of April, in the year 2024, at the City of Markham, in the Regional Municipality of York, did possess a substance, namely N-methyl-3,4-ethylenedioxyamphetamine, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s.5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Count #6 – On about the 3rd day of April in the year 2024, at the City of Markham, in the Regional Municipality of York, did possess a substance, namely lysergic acid diethylamide, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Count #8 – On about the 8th day of March in the year 2024, at the City of Markham in the Regional Municipality of York, did unlawfully export from Canada a substance included in Schedule I, namely cocaine, in an amount that was not more than one kilogram, contrary to s. 6(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Count #10 – On about the 8th day of March in the year 2024, at the City of Markham in the Regional Municipality of York, did unlawfully export from Canada a substance included in Schedule I, namely N-methyl-3, 4- ethylenedioxyamphetamine, in an amount that was not more than one kilogram, contrary to section 6(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Count #11 – on about the 8th day of March in the year 2024, at the City of Markham in the Regional Municipality of York, did unlawfully possess a substance included in Schedule I, namely ketamine, in an amount that was not more than one kilogram for the purpose of exporting it from Canada, contrary to section 6(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
Count #13 – on about the 8th day of March in the year 2024, at the City of Markham in the Regional Municipality of York, did unlawfully possess a substance included in Schedule III, namely Lysergic acid diethylamide for the purpose of exporting it from Canada, contrary to section 6(3)(b) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.
[2] For simplicity's sake the charges are as follows:
4 counts possession for the purpose of trafficking (section 5(2) of the CDSA):
- Cocaine
- Ketamine
- MDMA
- LSD (Acid)
2 counts of exporting (section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA):
- Cocaine
- MDMA
2 counts of possession for the purpose of exporting (section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA):
- Ketamine
- LSD (Acid)
[3] The Crown elected to proceed by Indictment, and Mr. Huang plead not guilty after having elected to be tried in the Ontario Court of Justice.
Agreed Statement of Facts
[4] At the outset of the trial an Agreed Statement of Fact was filed as Exhibit #1, along with Certificates of Analysis, and Exhibits #3 through #7 which are videos of Mr. Huang attending at the interior and exterior of Chit Chats shipping located at 825 Denison Street, Unit #9 in Markham.
[5] The majority of the Crown's case went in through an agreed statement of facts. Contained within Exhibit #1 are the following agreed upon facts:
(1) On March 8, 2024, Terry Huang attended at Chit Chats Shipping at 825 Denison Street, Unit #9, in Markham, Ontario and dropped off two parcels. Both Parcels were addressed to:
Andrew T and Terry H 1306 NW 6th St Miami, FL 33215-4722
(2) Abie Paul, an associate at Chit Chats Shipping, inspected the parcels after Terry Huang dropped them off. Chit Chats Shipping has a policy to screen the first three packages being shipped by new customers. Terry Huang created an account on February 25, 2024, and his client history had one earlier shipped parcel on February 26, 2024.
(3) On March 11, 2024, Jason Walker, the district manager of Chit Chats Shipping, reported the packages that Terry Huang dropped off on March 8, 2024 to the police. PC Ho and PC Patel were dispatched to Chit Chats Shipping to respond to the call.
(4) At 13:06, PC Ho and PC Patel arrived at Chit Chats Shipping and spoke to Kohilavani Thivagaran, one of the shipping clerks. Kohilavani Thivagaran provided the officers with the two packages that were dropped off by Mr. Huang on March 8, 2024. Officers seized the packages and attended at York Regional Police - 5 District to process the contents of the packages.
(5) One package contained a VLONE shirt with "FRIENDS" on it, in orange writing. Tucked inside was a silver Ziploc baggie that contained white pills and another vacuum sealed bag with multiple small baggies with substances inside.
(6) One package contained a black AMIRI t-shirt. Tucked inside was a silver Ziploc bag containing several individual baggies inside of it.
[6] Colour photos of the items seized were contained in Exhibit #1 and are reproduced below.
[7] It is important to take specific note of the fact that there appear to be names written on several of the individual baggies. Some of the names appear to be "Sandy", "Andrew", "Terry", and "Bobby".
[8] The agreed statement of fact continues:
(7) On March 12, 2024, Mr. Huang attended at Chit Chats Shipping to follow up on the packages he dropped off on March 8, 2024. A Chit Chats Shipping employee directed Terry Huang to contact Chit Chats support and US Customs.
(8) On March 29, 2024, DC Hatzes began drafting a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant for 123 White Lotus Circle, Markham, Ontario and the black 2013 BMW X6, Licence Plate: (Ontario) BVWL056. This is the address on file with Chit Chats Shipping for Mr. Huang. The warrants were approved on the same day.
(9) On April 3, 2024, police attended at 123 White Lotus Circle, Markham, Ontario to execute the search warrant and they made entry at 18:35 hours. Mr. Huang met officers, unlocked the door and had a cellphone in his hand. DC Hatzes arrested Mr. Huang and provided him with his rights to counsel and caution.
(10) During a search of Mr. Huang's bedroom at 123 White Lotus Circle, DC Meli located a brown cardboard box in the closet. Inside the box, was a black dime bag with white powder, a clear dime bag with powder, cigarettes, a grinder, a pipe, and supplements. Next to the brown cardboard box, DC Meli located an Ontario Driver's licence in Terry Huang's name.
(11) DC Meli located various parcels and stickers with Terry Huang's name on them in the closet, and a "drug testing kit" on the closet floor. On the upper shelf of the closet, a "capsule filler device" was located.
(12) On the upper shelf of the closet, DC Meli located a black "Supreme" satchel, that contained various packaged substances. Located also were many items which contained the name and picture of Mr. Huang on them. DC Hatzes located a digital scale with white residue, a red supreme box, and metal tools with residue on top of the yellow bin beside the bed. DC Hatzes located various substances inside the red supreme box.
(13) A search of another room in the house was conducted as well. DC Azoulay located a small baggie with a white substance in a black Dior satchel that was on the floor, under the desk. DC Azoulay also located a white powder substance on the desk with a "T" on it, orange/yellow pills on the desk in a Ziploc bag, and in a black backpack on the floor, he located a large number of baggies and empty pill capsules.
(14) On a Christmas card contained within that same room, someone named "Kendrick" appears to have written: "Teerrryyy!! Thx for all the hookups man! Hella clutch with all the goodies for raves ;) And I am very grateful for you paying for A LOT of shit and promise I will pay you back LOL. … "
(15) Also contained within the agreed statement of fact are charts outlining the total amount of drugs seized in the investigation, and in what form they were seized (i.e. powder vs. pill/capsule).
Detective Kevin Selwood #2156
[9] As their sole viva voce witness on the trial the Crown called Det. Kevin Selwood. After going through his CV, and his testimony about his experience with the York Regional Police Service, his education, and his participation in conferences and continuing education, on consent of both parties I qualified Det. Selwood to provide expert evidence in the area of drug subculture, drug pricing, and drug distribution of ketamine, cocaine and MDMA.
[10] In his expert opinion report, tendered as Exhibit #9, Det. Selwood outlines the quantities of drugs seized during the investigation:
- 36.13 grams of MDMA in 7 separate packages (9.81g + 1.9g + 0.52g + 2.21g + 4.79g + 0.07g + 15.08g)
- 66 pills of MDMA in 6 locations
- 39.18 grams of powder cocaine in 4 packages (34.8g + 0.18g + 1.31g + 1.78g)
- 21.16 grams of ketamine in 7 packages (4.12g + 10.63g + 0.15 + 0.25g + 1.07g + 2.98g + 0.42g)
- 3.18 grams of methamphetamine
- 2 capsules of methamphetamine
- 136 LSD strips (117 + 10)
[11] In his examination in chief, and consistent with the evidence contained in his expert opinion report, Det. Selwood provided an overview of the effect of each of these drugs on the body and their typical pricing. He also included evidence about the subculture of each of the drugs involved, the typical "scene" these drugs are used in, and usual individual doses vs. amounts for the purpose of trafficking.
[12] Det. Selwood testified about varying indicia of trafficking with respect to drugs like cocaine, ketamine and MDMA, as well as the presence of items that could lead to an inference of trafficking – cutting agents, multiple cell phones, large amounts of currency. The presence of packing materials can also lead to an inference of trafficking – baggies, empty capsules, weigh scales.
[13] At the conclusion of his examination-in-chief, Det. Selwood stated:
"In my experience, the sheer volume of these substances on their own, in my experience, is more than a, even a heavy sustained user would have in their possession. The presence of the other indicia of, packaging, currency, multiple phones, scale, that enhances that opinion because those are commonly found with, with someone who is trafficking these substances versus someone who's using them. I haven't seen these amounts, in my experience, for personal use. Also, the presence of multiple substances allows for increase in profit margin. If, in fact, the, the individual was using one of these substances, it allows them to support their habit."
[14] With respect to indicia of trafficking, Det. Selwood agreed in cross-examination that there is nothing rather exceptional about having $395 in cash in one's possession (like Mr. Huang did). Similarly to his knowledge there were no known cutting agents found during the search.
[15] Det. Selwood testified that in his experience he has never come across a personal user of any of these drugs "buy in bulk" to avoid security risks of continually buying from a sketchy or unsafe drug dealer. He allowed for the possibility that it could happen.
Evidence of Terry Huang
[16] Mr. Huang testified that he is 26 years old, and currently lives in Markham. He graduated high school, and then went to the University of Waterloo and got his bachelor's degree in science and business. Following graduation, he went to work for Deloitte, but now works for Salesforce in business development.
[17] Mr. Huang and his friends (a large group of about 15 friends) are very much into the electronic dance music (EDM) scene. Their hobby is going to raves, attending concerts and music festivals.
[18] Mr. Huang testified that they go to festivals or concerts quite often. On average, according to Mr. Huang, they would go to 10 or so festivals a year, and maybe somewhere between 15 to 20 or more individual concerts per year.
[19] Throughout his testimony, Mr. Huang was not shy in talking about his involvement with various "party drugs". Mr. Huang testified that "(a)ll of the substances that were found in my house would have been consumed at these events".
[20] Mr. Huang admitted that he attended at the Chit Chats Shipping in Markham to drop the packages off. He testified that the destination was an Airbnb in Miami that he and his friends were going to stay at for the Ultra Music Festival in Miami from March 22nd to March 24th, 2024. Even though the package destined for Miami never made it, Mr. Huang and his friends still went to the festival in Miami. At one point Mr. Huang reached out to the shipping company and was told that it was still in transit.
[21] Mr. Huang then testified as to the following:
Q. All right. So, Terry, the drugs that were found in that package that was intercepted at Chit Chats, is there a relationship between those substances and what was found at your house?
A. Yes. The package from Chit Chats was, or, sorry. The substances from the package from Chit Chats were all, all came from the substances that were found at my house.
[22] Mr. Huang testified that the substances found at his house, and by extension the ones also that were found in the Chit Chats packages were all purchased in one big order, or all at once to be more specific. Mr. Huang testified that he purchased a quantity of MDMA, ketamine, LSD and cocaine, as well as several pressed pills of MDMA.
[23] I will admit that when Mr. Huang testified so freely and openly about purchasing large quantities of various drugs, I was a little taken aback. I interrupted Mr. Huang's examination-in-chief to ask Mr. Rechtshaffen to clarify the defence position. Mr. Huang was clearly testifying that he was in possession of the drugs – simple possession only according to him.
[24] With reference to various mandates (of which I know nothing) or directions to federal prosecutors with respect to the prosecution of offences of simple possession, counsel for Mr. Huang stated: "Obviously, I'm not trying to put my friend in an awkward position, but legally, on the strict interpretation of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, my client will be admitting that he was in possession of these drugs. Simple possession."
[25] Mr. Huang testified that the MDMA he received was in rock form as well as pressed pills, and the ketamine that he received was in two forms also – S-type and R-type. The S-type looks like a rock, and the R-type looks like crystalline shards.
[26] Mr. Huang testified that he and his main group of friends that he attends the festivals with – 15 of them – were all party to this purchase.
[27] This purchase all came about when Mr. Huang and his friends were at the VELD music festival in Toronto, and they were testing out a new supply of drugs. He and his friends thought that it was a good supply, so they discussed how they should pick up a large quantity so that they had a supply for the upcoming festival season.
[28] Factors in favour of their decision to buy in bulk were that they liked the product, it was safe (given the ongoing fentanyl crisis) and the supplier maintained a safe supply, the availability of the dealer, and it was simply economical to buy in bulk. This latter point is consistent with the testimony of Det. Selwood.
[29] Despite the fact that all 15 of his friends were in on the decision to make this bulk purchase, Mr. Huang went by himself to make the purchase.
[30] The original order was 2 ounces of cocaine, 1.5 ounces of MDMA (moonrock and champagne), 1 ounce of ketamine, 250 single doses of LSD, and then 75 pressed MDMA pills. The total cost was about $7000. Everyone contributed roughly the same amount of money ($500 each). Almost everyone paid Mr. Huang in advance.
[31] The quantity contained within the bulk order as outlined by Mr. Huang is consistent with the amounts seized as referenced in Det. Selwood's report. The amount seized is a little less than the bulk order, but this makes sense given the passage of time, and the testimony of Mr. Huang.
[32] Mr. Huang kept all the drugs at his house. He recognized that he assumed all the risk, and that he did so because his parents aren't as "snoopy" as his friends' parents, and his parents would not go through his belongings and his room. Mr. Huang admitted that assuming all the risk, keeping the drugs at his house, and using his real name and real information to ship the drugs to Miami was not a wise decision.
[33] The initial discussion with his friends about the purchase happened at the VELD music festival in early August 2023. A week or so later they further discussed what they wanted to buy and put together a rough estimate of the quantities. The bulk purchase was supposed to take them through to at least the end of the festival season in 2024. The actual bulk purchase was made in late August 2023.
[34] As part of his examination-in-chief, Mr. Huang put in a number of charts and spreadsheets into evidence. It is clear that he and his friends are a close knit, and very organized group. They keep track of expenses, ticket sales, hotel bookings, and even grocery lists on various shared spreadsheets. They love going to EDM festivals and meticulously keep track of their expenses and costs.
[35] Mr. Huang testified that the one or two people who did not pay their $500 share for the bulk purchase were prohibited from accessing the drugs until they paid. It was Mr. Huang who asserted this control – he wanted to make it fair for everyone.
[36] With respect to how people would access the drugs, and the "ownership" of these drugs, Mr. Huang testified to the following in his examination-in-chief:
D. RECHTSHAFFEN: Q. And, I guess that brings me to my next point. In terms of anyone who had joint ownership in these drugs, you described keeping them in your house and you said that part of the issue was that people lived at home, and they might have nosy parents. But if someone wanted to access their share of these drugs, was there, like, did you exercise control over them over and above their ability to access them?
A. No. Oh. Sorry. No. Not at all. Since they had their own equal ownership, and it was simply being stored at my house, if they wanted to access them at any time, they were more than welcome to.
Q. Okay. Did you ever run into any kind of issues with that, any conflict over that between you and any of the other parties?
A. No. I would say that me and my friend group are very close and we're very tight- knit, and we have a good level of trust between all of us that, you know, nobody would ever try to cheat the system or, you know, like take more than they're allowed to share.
Q. Okay. And, how did you keep track of what was being used by everyone?
A. Primarily, there was a, I guess there was a sheet in the house that, you know, like if you took something, you would have marked down, for example, if I came and I grabbed like two grams of cocaine or whatever, I would say, I would mark down on the paper two grams of coke.
Q. So, these bags, these are all taken from the Chit Chats package?
A. Correct.
Q. What do the names on these packages correspond to?
A. These correspond to my friends that also went to Ultra Music Festival with me.
Q. Okay. And, so do all of these, is each one bag assigned to a particular person, or how does this work?
A. For the most part, all the bags are assigned to a particular person. There is two extra bags, I believe. One of them should say extra on it, and the other one has my name on it. Those are basically just because at these festivals, it's very unpredictable how much substances you're planning to do. And, the way that we thought about it was that it was always better to have too much rather than too little.
Q. Okay. And, so, for example, there's one bag here that's just labelled K. Can you tell us about that bag?
A. Yes. So, again, with these kinds of powders, especially since we're hanging out all together as a group, it doesn't really make much sense to split it into like, you know, like five different bags of like 0.3 grams or anything. Since we're all pretty much together the whole time, it makes sense to just keep it in kind of like one communal bag. Since nobody really takes more than another person, or we have like a good level of trust that nobody would try to, it's, it's easier just to have like one communal bag and if you want one, you know, just come over, ask for a bump.
Q. Okay. And, so if we see a particular person's name on a bag of powder, for example, Bobby...
A. Correct.
Q. ...or Safe or whatever...
A. Mm- hmm.
Q. ...does that mean that that person just consumes that for themselves or is it possible that there's some other kind of usage?
A. Yeah. So, the reason for that is because those people had specific sets or like portions of days that, where they would not be with the group. For example, if the majority of us wanted to see one DJ, but, you know, like I guess Bobby, for example, said, hey, I'm going to go see this guy for a closing instead, can you, you know, make sure I have my own bag for that festival, or, sorry, that DJ.
THE COURT: Sorry. Go back to that picture if you don't mind.
D. RECHTSHAFFEN: Sure.
THE COURT: Who did the divvying up of substances into those bags?
THE WITNESS: That would have been me.
THE COURT: Who wrote the names on the bags?
THE WITNESS: That would have also been me.
THE COURT: Okay. Thanks.
D. RECHTSHAFFEN: Q. Just on that point though, is there a limitation on how much anyone could have asked for up to their share of, you know, one 15th of whatever the total was?
A. Um....
Q. Like did you decide? Were you the....
A. No, no, no. Everyone told me exactly what they wanted. Again, this is like their own portion. All I really did was, because it was already at my house, I just put it into bags for them.
[37] Mr. Huang was the one who, because it was stored at his house, put the bulk order into individual baggies or capsules, wrote names on the bags, and prepared the individual amounts for his friends.
[38] Mr. Huang was taken through the chart contained within the agreed statement of facts and testified – consistent with his earlier position – that all the drugs seized from his house came from the group buy. Some of the drugs came in various forms -rock, powder, pills. When taken to a picture of some MDMA in rock form, I had the following exchange with Mr. Huang:
THE COURT: Can I ask one question since you're on that picture?
D. RECHTSHAFFEN: Sure.
THE COURT: When you bought it...
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: ...like from the, when you bought kind of the bulk purchase...
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE COURT: ...some of it came to you like that, like kind of in a rock. Right?
THE WITNESS: Primarily, primarily a rock. Yes.
THE COURT: But in order to get it into the capsules, if somebody wanted capsules...
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: ...you got to grind it.
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Or you got to shave it or put it through a sieve or something. Correct?
THE WITNESS: Correct.
THE COURT: Who did that?
THE WITNESS: That would have also been me, simply due to the fact that it was at my house and I didn't mind helping my friends, I guess.
[39] Mr. Huang testified throughout his examination in chief that he was the one who manipulated the bulk product into smaller portions for him and his friends – either by dividing it up into smaller baggies or putting the broken-down powder into gel capsules.
[40] None of the drugs from this bulk purchase were ever intended to be sold to anyone either inside or outside the friend group.
[41] If ever there was a communal bag, presumably used by all the friend group at the festival, or leftover drugs from a rave or festival, Mr. Huang would store that bag at his house with the remainder of the bulk order.
[42] In cross-examination Mr. Huang reiterated that the reason the drugs were stored at his place was because his parents would not snoop through his room. He lived at 123 White Lotus Circle with his mother, father and his sister.
[43] Again, with respect to accessing the drugs, Mr. Huang testified to the following in cross-examination:
Q. … And you also mentioned that your friends, there was never an issue with them having access to that communal drugs?
A. Correct.
Q. So, practically, how do they get there? Do they just walk in the front door, upstairs to your room, and grab drugs?
A. No. They would let me know, say, hey, I have so-and-so coming up, can I grab, you know, like, some "M?" And I would say, sure. Like, I'm home between so-and- so. Just let me know when you're here.
Q. And they'd come to your house?
A. Yes. Yeah.
Q. And, before they get there, you'd have everything kind of packaged out for them?
A. Not always. Depending if, depending what I was doing at the time. Sometimes if I was, if I had time or if I was feeling nice I could but they would also do it themselves sometimes.
Q. And what about the pills? They would do the pills themselves too, like, the capsules, I mean?
A. Sometimes. Yes. It is time consuming and sometimes I just, yeah.
Q. How would they get the drugs into the capsules? Did they know where the...
A. Yes. They....
Q. pill machine was?
A. Yes. Yes. They knew, yes, they knew about the pill machine and, yes, and the spoons.
Q. And so, did your friends know where you were keeping the drugs in your house?
A. Some of them knew, not all of them. Sometimes like if, sometimes I would just, if I knew they were coming over I would just take it out and, like, put it on, like, on my table or whatever, like, the box I mean.
[44] When it was put to Mr. Huang in cross-examination that because of his testing of the supply, and his dividing up of the bulk order, he is essentially a "drug dealer", Mr. Huang said the following:
Q. And so, while you have your day job, I'll suggest that you also have a side gig, that sometimes you sell some drugs to make a bit of extra money?
A. No. I would say that I don't. Again, I don't really have any expenses. While I am, you know, maybe a bit reckless, spending on random things, like, the drugs have never been about the money. It's always been about making sure that me and friends are able to have a good time, stay safe, you know, and, you know, really live life to the fullest. It's never really, it's never been about the money.
Q. Making sure that you and your friends have a good time? Making sure that they have access to a safe drug supply?
A. Correct. That we stay safe.
Analysis
Standard of Proof
[45] There is one overriding issue in this, and in all criminal trials that come before the Court – has the Crown proven the guilt of Mr. Huang beyond a reasonable doubt? This burden of proof always rests with the Crown. The burden of proof must be met with respect to each of the offence's essential elements, and this burden is a heavy one. A reasonable doubt must be a doubt based on reason and common sense. It is a doubt that logically arises from the evidence, or the absence of evidence. See: R. v. Lifchus, [1997] S.C.J. No. 77.
[46] In order to determine this issue, I must keep a number of things in mind:
(1) Mr. Huang began this trial with the presumption of innocence. That presumption remains with him throughout the trial and is only overcome if there is admissible and properly used evidence that satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt.
(2) Reasonable doubt is not something that is imaginary or frivolous, nor is it based on sympathy for or prejudice against any of the parties. It must be something that logically arises from the evidence, or lack thereof. If I am only satisfied that Mr. Huang is probably guilty, I must acquit him of these charges.
[47] Mr. Huang testified. When an accused person testifies at their trial, the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] S.C.J. No. 26 tells me that first, if I believe the evidence of Mr. Huang, obviously I must acquit him of the offences charged. Second, if I do not believe the testimony of Mr. Huang but I am left in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit him. Third, even if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of Mr. Huang, I must ask myself whether, based on the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of Mr. Huang. If I am convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, then I must convict.
[48] I must also keep in mind that it is almost impossible for the Crown to prove anything to an absolute certainty, nor is the Crown required to do so – this would be an impossibly high standard. However, it is trite law that the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to probable guilt. It is not enough for me to believe that Mr. Huang is likely or probably guilty.
Possession
[49] Throughout the course of his testimony Mr. Huang frankly testified about the initial purchase of the drugs from the "trusted" drug dealer. Mr. Huang testified that as a result of his family circumstance – i.e. that he has a degree of autonomy over the contents of his bedroom within his home and his parents did not search his room or go through his belongings – he was the one that held on to all the drugs for his friends.
[50] At one point during his examination-in-chief, after a question from me, it became apparent that Mr. Huang was testifying in such a manner that amounted to an admission of at least simple possession. Mr. Huang fully admitted that he bought these drugs from the dealer, he held them in his room, and he took the drugs to the Chit Chats store.
[51] There is no question, and I have no difficulty finding as fact on the evidence before the court – inclusive of his own testimony – that Mr. Huang was in possession of cocaine, LSD, MDMA and ketamine. The next issue is what if any other purpose Mr. Huang was in possession of those drugs for.
Overview of the Law: Exporting
[52] At the outset, I note that during submissions counsel for Mr. Huang took issue with the fact that Mr. Huang was formally arraigned on count #8 and count #10 relating to section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA – this is the punishment section of the exporting offence. Essentially Mr. Rechtshaffen submits that Mr. Huang was arraigned under the wrong section.
[53] I disagree. Arraigning an accused person under the punishment section of an offence is routinely done and happens all the time. This does not render for some reason the charge or the arraignment a nullity. Mr. Huang was in no way prejudiced, nor is he left at a disadvantage, or with some confusion, as to the case against him following his arraignment under the punishment section.
[54] In fact, the first words of section 6(3)(a) are "if the subject matter of the offence …", referencing of course the offence in section 6(1). I reject completely the notion that by virtue of his arraignment under the punishment section there is any kind or error.
[55] Section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act reads as follows:
Importing and exporting
6(1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall import into Canada or export from Canada a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V or VI.
[56] Neither the term "importing" nor "exporting" is defined within the CDSA. Courts have routinely given a plain meaning to these terms, meaning simply to cause to bring into, or cause to be sent out of the country. See: R. v. Bell, [1983] S.C.J. No. 83.
[57] Much of the jurisprudence deals with the offence of importing. This is likely so because when a substance is imported, the importing country is the one that deals with the prosecution of that offence. Conversely, when the offence is exporting (i.e. causing the substance to leave the country) the country from which the substance is exported does not have much interaction once the substance has left the country.
[58] Much of the analysis with respect to the actus reus of exporting offences can be taken from the caselaw dealing with importing offences.
[59] It is often important for accused persons, when charged with a criminal offence, and when defining the case to be met, for individuals to know when a particular offence starts and ends. Put another way, is the particular offence a continuing offence, or is it complete upon certain action?
[60] The best example of this is of course the offence of kidnapping. The initial confinement of an individual, coupled with further detention, potential transportation of the victim, and completion when a victim is released is an example of an offence that is characterized as a continuing offence. See R. v. Vu, 2012 SCC 40, [2012] S.C.J. No. 40 at paragraph 6: "Therefore, while the crime of kidnapping may be complete in law when the victim is initially apprehended and moved, the crime will not be complete in fact until the victim is freed."
[61] The same "continuing offence" analysis holds true for importing and exporting offences. The Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with this issue in R. v. Foster, [2018] O.J. No. 488. Justice Watt cites R. v. Bell as follows at paragraph 64 and 65:
[64] The majority rejected the submission that importing was a continuing offence. McIntyre J. expressed his conclusion in this way:
It is apparent, in my view, that importing a narcotic cannot be a continuing offence. I do not find it necessary to make extensive reference to dictionaries in order to define the word "import". In my view, since the Narcotic Control Act does not give a special definition of the word, its ordinary meaning should apply and that ordinary meaning is simply to bring into the country or to cause to be brought into the country. With the utmost respect for judges who have taken a different view, I am of the opinion that the characterization of importing a narcotic as a continuing offence is misconceived. The offence is complete when the goods enter the country. Thereafter the possessor or owner may be guilty of other offences, such as possession, possession for the purpose of trafficking, or even trafficking itself, but the offence of importing has been completed and the importer in keeping or disposing of the drug has embarked on a new criminal venture.
Bell, at pp. 488-489.
[65] Later, McIntyre J. added:
The Narcotic Control Act forbids the importation of narcotics into Canada. The offence of importation may be committed anywhere in Canada and one offence may occur in whole or in part at more than one location in Canada. As in the case of the honest merchant, the drug importer may from one part of Canada make all the arrangements and do all the acts necessary to bring about the importation of narcotics at another point. In so doing, it may be said he has committed an offence which has occurred at two places, or commenced in one jurisdiction and completed in another. Either the courts of the jurisdiction where the goods entered the country or those of the province where the acts or arrangement leading to the importation occurred will have jurisdiction to deal with the case: see s. 432(b) of the Criminal Code.
Bell, at p. 491.
[62] Still with reference to the offence of importing, Justice Zarnett of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Dhatt, [2023] O.J. No. 4740 states the following at paragraphs 12 through 14:
[12] The appellant also argues that the conviction for importing was unreasonable because the cocaine did not clear customs and was never released from the control of the authorities. He submits that the decision of a five-judge panel of this court in R. v. Okojie, 2021 ONCA 773, 158 O.R. (3d) 450, leave to appeal refused, [2022] S.C.C.A. No. 113 stands for the proposition that the offence of importing is not complete, and therefore has not been committed, until these events occur.
[13] I do not interpret Okojie as compelling the far-reaching conclusion that a person, like the appellant, who intends to import cocaine and physically brings it with them into Canada does not commit the offence of importing if the person is caught by customs authorities having cocaine at the point of entry into Canada, and is thereupon arrested, and the drugs are seized.
[14] First, such a conclusion is inconsistent with prior decisions in which this court has affirmed convictions for importing where drugs were detected by customs authorities at the accused's point of entry into Canada in a suitcase the accused was travelling with, or on their person, the drugs were seized and the accused was thereupon arrested: see for example R. v. Valentini, [1999], 43 O.R. (3d) 178, at para. 18; R. v. Foster, 2018 ONCA 53, 360 C.C.C. (3d) 213, leave to appeal refused, [2018] S.C.C.A. No. 127, at paras. 27 to 29; R. v. Giscombe, 2023 ONCA 637, at paras. 1, 3. Valentini and Foster were referred to in Okojie without any suggestion that the results they reached were incorrect. Giscombe was decided after Okojie.
[63] If the offence of importing is complete when the goods enter the country, then it stands to reason, and I have no difficulty in so finding, that the offence of exporting is complete when the goods leave the country.
[64] Mr. Huang knowingly put the drugs in the packages, and knowingly took them to the Chit Chats Shipping company in order to have the drugs sent to Miami so that he and his friends could use them at their Airbnb and while attending a music festival in Miami.
[65] Pursuant to their internal policy, Chit Chats Shipping search every package sent by a new customer until that customer has shipped three packages with them. This was Mr. Huang's second shipment. His packages were searched, and the drugs were found. Mr. Huang's packages never left the country. They stayed in Canada and made their way into the possession of the police.
[66] Given that the goods never left the country, the actus reus of the offence of exporting is not complete. Mr. Huang's attendance at and the dropping off the packages at Chit Chats Shipping is not enough to complete the offence. Like the offence of importing, the drugs needed to have left the country for the offence to be complete.
Possession for the Purpose of Exporting
[67] Section 6(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act reads as follows:
Possession for the purpose of exporting
(2) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV, V or VI for the purpose of exporting it from Canada.
[68] Again, as Mr. Huang was arraigned on the punishment section with respect to this offence, counsel made the argument that Mr. Huang was arraigned under the wrong section and the charges ought to be dismissed. Based on the above analysis, I disagree with counsel and reject the argument. There is nothing wrong with arraigning an individual on the punishment section of the charge, especially when on plain reading – like this section – the offence is referenced in that punishment section.
[69] Section 2 of the CDSA incorporated the definition of possession found in section 4(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada which reads as follows:
Possession
(3) For the purposes of this Act,
(a) a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly
(i) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or
(ii) has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person; and
(b) where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, it shall be deemed to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them.
[70] Under s. 4(3), possession includes personal possession, constructive possession and joint possession. Knowledge and control are essential elements in both personal and constructive possession. See: R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] S.C.J. No. 8 at paragraph 15, and R. v. Bains, 2015 ONCA 677, [2015] O.J. No. 5191 at paragraph 154.
[71] Knowledge of a drug can often be inferred from the physical possession or custody of that drug by an accused. People generally know what is on their person, in their pockets, or in their bag.
[72] Justice Baltman of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in R. v. Dufort, [2024] O.J. No. 1659 made the following comment:
[24] Where an accused possesses a controlled substance with a significant value, as is the case here, a trier of fact may infer both knowledge of the nature of the substance and knowledge of the substance itself. These inferences "may be available from the objective improbability that such a valuable quantity of drugs would be entrusted to anyone who did not know the nature of the contents in the means of transport": Burnett, at para. 64; R. v. Bains, 2015 ONCA 677, at para. 157, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 478.
[73] Fortunately, here, no such inference needs resorting to for the purposes of knowledge of the drugs found in relation to Mr. Huang. There is direct evidence from Mr. Huang that he purchased the drugs along with a number of friends of his, and it was his role within the friend group to keep possession of the drugs so that they would avoid detection by any of his friends' parents.
[74] For the Crown to prove the offence in section 6(2) of the CDSA, the Crown must first prove possession. Given the manner in which Mr. Huang testified, and the admissions made by both he and his counsel, there is no question that Mr. Huang was in possession of these drugs. In his possession he exercised both knowledge of the drugs, and control over the drugs.
[75] Mr. Huang testified that he was the one who conducted the initial bulk purchase because he was the one who had contact with the drug dealer. Mr. Huang was the one that kept the drugs at his house because his parents respected his privacy and did not "snoop" through his belongings. Mr. Huang was the one who at times divided the bulk purchase up into smaller amounts for his friends, and even wrote their names on the baggies for them. Mr. Huang at times created capsules for his friends. Mr. Huang would at times get smaller portions of the bulk purchase ready for his friends to come pick up at his house when they wanted a portion of the supply.
[76] The agreed statement of fact, the video evidence, and Mr. Huang's own testimony prove that he was the one that packaged up the drugs into the shipping packages and took them to Chit Chats Shipping so that they could be mailed to the Airbnb in Miami. Mr. Huang used his own name on the account with the shipping company. Mr. Huang used his name on the address label.
[77] I have no difficulty finding that for the offences in counts #11 and #13, as well as the offences in counts #1, #2, #5 and #6 the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Huang was in possession of the drugs listed in those counts.
[78] The law with respect to the offence of exporting is outlined above and is relatively straightforward. At this stage, having proven possession, the Crown must prove that Mr. Huang's possession of the drugs was for the purpose of exporting.
[79] There is no question that when Mr. Huang packaged the drugs (inclusive of LSD and MDMA in a quantity less than one kilogram), put them in a shipping package, went to the Chit Chats Shipping company, put his name and the Miami Airbnb address on the package, and dropped the package off at Chit Chats Shipping, his intent was to export the drugs to Miami.
[80] Mr. Huang in fact testified that he attempted to send the drugs to Miami so that they could be consumed at a Miami music festival. His intent and purpose was clear.
[81] There does not need to be the completed act of exporting in order for this offence to be proven. The simple question to be asked – which reflects both the actus reus and the mens rea of this offence – is when Mr. Huang was in possession of those drugs, in that package, that he dropped off at Chit Chats Shipping, did he intend for those drugs to be sent (or exported) to Miami? It can only be answered in the affirmative.
Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking
[82] Section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act reads as follows:
Possession for purpose of trafficking
(2) No person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III, IV or V.
[83] Similar to the offence of possession for the purpose of exporting, the Crown, in order to prove possession for the purpose of trafficking must first prove possession. Based on the analysis above, and Mr. Huang's own testimony possession is clearly made out.
[84] The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act defines "traffic" in section 2(1) as follows:
traffic means, in respect of a substance included in any of Schedules I to V,
(a) to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver the substance,
(b) to sell an authorization to obtain the substance, or
(c) to offer to do anything mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b), otherwise than under the authority of the regulations. (trafic)
[85] Simply put, trafficking means to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send, or deliver the substance. As well, an offer to do any of these things also constitutes trafficking under the CDSA.
[86] To prove the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking the Crown must prove both elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) that Mr. Huang was in possession of the drugs, and (2) that he was in possession of the drugs for the purpose of trafficking.
[87] While I have outlined above how possession was proven by the Crown, counsel for Mr. Huang raised the issue of joint possession and joint ownership of the drugs as if it were a defence to the charge as alleged. The argument distilled down is that given that Mr. Huang's other friends all had an equal ownership interest in the drugs, Mr. Huang cannot have trafficked the drugs to someone who had an ownership interest in those drugs.
[88] I disagree with this argument.
[89] In support of their position, counsel relied on R. v. Haddock, [2014] O.J. No. 6625 a decision of Bigelow J. of the Ontario Court of Justice. This case dealt primarily with the joint production of marijuana by three individuals, an endeavour which evolved over several seasons for Mr. Haddock. While this case is easily distinguishable on its facts – primarily that all individuals involved had the same level of activity in the production and cultivation of the plants, the following comments at paragraph 41 and 42:
[41] In my view, the admissions with respect to trafficking referred to above do not change the purpose for which the plants were grown. The defence evidence, which I am unable to reject, is that the purpose of the grow op was to provide marijuana for the consumption of the joint owners of the plants. The type of trafficking admitted was clearly only incidental to the production, and not the reason that it was being produced.
[42] In R v Gardiner, [1987] O.J. No. 411 our Court of Appeal considered the issue of joint ownership of marijuana and found, as stated in the headnote: "Where all persons alleged to be sharing joint ownership are together and could all be charged with possession the appropriate charge is possession." In my view, that statement applies to this case before the court. The three defence witnesses were jointly producing and possessing the marijuana which was being grown.
[90] Counsel similarly relies on R. v. Gardiner, [1987] O.J. No. 411 (CA), but this case too is distinguishable on the facts. Paragraph 13 of Gardiner is however instructive:
[13] The practical distinction, as I see it, between Young, Taylor and O'Connor, on the one hand, and Harrington, Binkley, and this case, on the other, is that in the latter cases, all persons alleged to be sharing ownership and possession were together and could all be charged with possession. The claim of joint Possession is, therefore, more credible. In the former cases, the persons alleged to be sharing possession were not present and might not have been successfully charged with possession. The consequences of the claim for joint possession in those cases are practically less credible. This case falls within the category of Harrington and Binkley, and I so decide.
[91] R. v. Neal, 2010 ONCA 281, [2010] O.J. No. 1518 (CA) (sub nom. R. v. Sansalone) is one of the leading cases on the definition of trafficking. Delivering judgment for the Court, Justice LaForme found:
[25] … Parliament has determined that the traffic in narcotics such as GHB poses a significant risk to society. They have therefore enacted wide ranging legislation to prohibit this trade. I agree with the reasons of Dubé J.A. in R. v. Rousseau, (1992), 70 C.C.C. (3d) 445 at 451 (Que. C.A.), leave ref'd, [1992] S.C.C.A. No. 394, that the intention of Parliament was to "prohibit all forms of action which encompass the circulation of narcotics."
[26] The definitions of "sell" and "traffic" in the CDSA, in my view, cast a very wide net, the goal of which is to facilitate prosecution of individuals who participate in or contribute to the trafficking of narcotics.
[27] The appellant proposes a definition of "sell" and "traffic" that, when read with the Criminal Code provisions on conspiracy, would limit criminal liability to actions taken up to the point at which drugs are delivered. In my view, such a narrow view of drug transactions is contrary to the purposes of the relevant provisions of the CDSA and Criminal Code.
[28] Indeed, the appellant's view is that by enacting a wide definition of "sell" that creates liability for people participating in various aspects of drug transactions such as delivery under the CDSA, Parliament simultaneously truncated the applicability of the Criminal Code's conspiracy provisions to these same transactions. If this were correct, the CDSA and Criminal Code would be working at cross purposes.
[29] The appellant is however correct to note that it is not necessary for the Crown to prove that payment has been made in order to establish that a drug was sold. Nevertheless, this does not make the payment of money irrelevant to, or separate from, the drug transaction. The definition of sell includes distributing, "whether or not the distribution is made for consideration." I read this as meaning that distributing without receiving consideration is selling, as is distributing in exchange for consideration.
[92] Mr. Huang and the other members of his friend group who contributed to the purchase of the bulk buy were not in joint possession of the drugs. There may have been joint ownership, but there was no joint possession. Joint ownership of a substance does not prohibit the "trafficking" of the substance from one owner to another.
[93] R. v. Taylor, [1974] B.C.J. No. 858 is almost directly on point:
[16] The words which I have underlined indicate what the appellant could well be found to have been doing with the bulk hashish on the night in question; the purpose for which it was in his possession. These words have been defined by the Oxford Universal Dictionary as follows:
"give" -- to bestow gratuitously; to render without payment; to deliver; to hand over; to allot; to apportion; and to yield.
"deliver" -- to hand over to another's possession or keeping; to give or distribute to the proper person or quarter; to present.
"distribute" -- to deal out or bestow in portions or shares among many or a number of recipients; to allot or apportion as his share to each person of a number; to spread.
[17] In each case the word contemplates a physical act involving two or more persons and it is important to note that these verbs can operate independently of and without reference to the ownership or change of ownership of the object given, delivered or distributed. In other words, one can "give", "deliver" or "distribute" an object to another or others regardless of whether that object is owned by the one, another or others or all or none of them. Here there was ample evidence, including the testimony of the appellant, that the appellant's purpose in bringing the hashish to his home on the day in question was to "give", "deliver" or "distribute" it to some or all of the others, as well as to take some for his own use.
[18] The gravamen of the charge of trafficking is possession plus the intent or purpose of physically making the hashish available to others, regardless of ownership. The simple fact that it was economic for the purchase price to be collected in advance from the potential users of the narcotic and a bulk purchase made, thereby vesting in such users some claim to ownership and title and even a deemed joint possession by them, does not alter the nature of the physical act of giving, delivering or distributing the narcotic to another or others, which in itself constitutes the offence.
[94] Despite the fact that Mr. Huang and all his friends may have been joint owners of the bulk purchase, it is Mr. Huang that had possession of the bulk purchase. He kept it at his house, he had control over the supply, he manipulated that supply such that it could be transformed from rock form into powder or capsules, he put portions of the supply into baggies for his friends to consume, he got the drugs ready for his friends when they called him and told him they were ready to pick it up, he put the drugs in the packages destined for Miami, he wrote the names on the baggies, he was the one who on his own went to the dealer and made the bulk purchase.
[95] Mr. Huang's actions clearly fit within the wide definition of trafficking. He had possession of the bulk supply, together with intent to traffic in that supply to his friends.
Conclusion
[96] As a result of the analysis above, I find as follows on the information:
On Count #1 – Guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
On Count #2 – Guilty of possession of ketamine for the purpose of trafficking.
On Count #5 – Guilty of possession of N-methyl-3,4-ethylenedioxyamphetamine (MDMA) for the purpose of trafficking.
On Count #6 – Guilty of possession of lysergic acid diethylamide for the purpose of trafficking.
On Count #8 – Not Guilty of exporting cocaine.
On Count #10 – Not Guilty of exporting N-methyl-3,4-ethylenedioxyamphetamine (MDMA).
On Count #11 – Guilty of possession for the purpose of exporting ketamine.
On Count #13 – Guilty of possession for the purpose of exporting lysergic acid diethylamide.
Released: October 3, 2025
Signed: Justice M. Townsend