Rachael Ward

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

He challenged the validity of the search warrant used to locate fentanyl and cocaine at a Toronto residence, arguing that the Information to Obtain lacked sufficient evidence to support its issuance and that the evidence ought to have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Three confidential sources had identified the appellant as a drug dealer through single photo identification, and police surveillance corroborated his connection to the searched address.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error, misapprehension of evidence, or failure to consider relevant evidence in the application judge's analysis, and dismissed the appeal without calling on the respondent.

The appellant, Sarah Richer, appealed her conviction for trafficking fentanyl and the four-year sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge’s refusal to leave the defence of duress with the jury and holding that, while the trial judge erred in his similar fact evidence instruction regarding prior drug purchases, the error caused no substantial wrong given the overwhelming evidence.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in principle by downplaying the appellant’s rehabilitation and failing to consider the impact of incarceration on her family.

The sentence was reduced to three years.

This decision clarifies the meaning of "export" under the Cannabis Act in the context of possession for the purpose of exporting cannabis.

The Court held that "export" means sending cannabis or industrial hemp from Canada to another country and does not require proof of commercial value or any additional purpose beyond the physical act of exportation.

The ruling emphasizes that the Act and its regulations permit exportation only for medical, scientific, or industrial hemp purposes, and that the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the possession was intended to cause the cannabis to leave Canada.

Megan Weston was arrested at Toronto Pearson International Airport with over 32 kg of cannabis concealed in her checked luggage, destined for London.

The Crown sought to qualify an RCMP Corporal as an expert witness on Canada as a cannabis source country, the UK as a recipient market, and cannabis pricing/value in the UK and GTA.

The defence opposed.

The court, applying the Mohan criteria, qualified the expert only for cannabis pricing and valuation in the GTA, finding the other areas irrelevant or lacking proper qualification.

The defendant, Tranh To Nguyen, was charged with the importation of 11 kilograms of heroin into Canada, found in a checked suitcase upon arrival at Toronto Pearson Airport.

The central issue was whether the defendant had knowledge and control of the drugs.

The defendant testified, denying knowledge and claiming the suitcase was a gift for a banker from a business associate in Johannesburg.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony, finding his account of the business trip and the suitcase implausible and his statements to border officers untruthful.

Based on the cumulative circumstances and the high value of the drugs, the court inferred full knowledge and control, leading to a finding of guilt.

The appellant, Michael Smith, appealed his seven-year global sentence for firearm and drug-related offences, arguing a calculation error in pre-sentence custody credit.

The Court of Appeal found an inadvertent denial of procedural fairness due to the sentencing judge's initial comments regarding a 2:1 equivalency for pre-sentence custody credit, which was not fully applied in the final sentence.

The Court increased the "Duncan credit" for harsh custodial conditions from four to nine months, resulting in a reduced net sentence for the appellant.