Randall Barrs

The court sentenced Spiro Rusha to five years' imprisonment for multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including fentanyl, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as possession of property obtained by crime.

The decision reviews the aggravating and mitigating factors, the circumstances of the offences and the offender, and the applicable sentencing principles and ranges.

The court found that a penitentiary sentence was required, rejecting the defence request for a conditional sentence, and imposed ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

The applicant, Spiro Rusha, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during a search warrant execution, arguing the warrant lacked reasonable grounds and the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading.

He also challenged the lawfulness of his arrest under s. 9 of the Charter and alleged excessive force during the arrest under s. 7.

The court dismissed all applications, finding the search warrant valid based on credible, compelling, and corroborated confidential informant information, and that the affiant did not intentionally mislead the issuing justice.

The court also found reasonable grounds for the arrest and that the force used was not excessive given the circumstances.

Mohammad Golizadeh pleaded guilty to possessing 28 kilograms of opium for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 7.5-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of opium and the sophisticated, ongoing nature of the scheme, and mitigating factors such as his first offender status, guilty plea, remorse, addiction as a contributing factor, and strong family support.

The judge imposed a 4-year custodial sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging rehabilitation and restraint principles.

The offender, an aviation mechanic, was convicted of attempting to import cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime after participating in a police sting operation.

He used his airport security clearance to retrieve a package he believed contained one kilogram of cocaine from an airplane panel.

The court found his moral culpability was significantly higher than a mere courier due to his breach of trust and planning.

He was sentenced to a net term of 4 years and 11 months in custody.

Mark Holland was convicted of sexual assault from 2008.

The sentencing was significantly delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought 16 months imprisonment, while the defence sought "time served" or a conditional sentence.

The court addressed the constitutionality of s. 742.1(f)(iii) of the Criminal Code, which precludes conditional sentences for sexual assault prosecuted by indictment.

The judge found this section to infringe ss. 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and declared it of no force or effect, following R. v. R.S. and R. v. Sharma.

Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the extraordinary delay, the court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence, to be served in the community, along with other standard orders (DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition).

The offender, an 18-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing two victims in a vehicle.

The offender argued for a non-custodial or short reformatory sentence, citing his need for upcoming abdominal surgery due to a prior gunshot wound.

The court found that correctional facilities could adequately accommodate his medical needs and that the severity of the unprovoked, premeditated attack required a penitentiary sentence.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 33 months in custody, less pre-sentence credit.

The three accused, charged with conspiracy to import cocaine and breach of trust, brought applications under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude intercepted private communications.

They alleged their s. 8 rights were violated because the police affiant deliberately misled the authorizing judge regarding the investigative plan to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the wiretap.

The court found the affidavit was materially misleading, though not deliberately so, and that without the misleading information, the authorization lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court concluded the wiretap violated s. 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the serious police carelessness and subsequent false testimony by the affiant outweighed society's interest in a trial on the merits.

The accused, charged with drug importation offences, brought a pre-trial Charter application challenging five successive wiretap authorizations.

The Crown objected to his standing to challenge the first authorization, as he was not named and his communications were not intercepted under it.

The court held that the accused lacked standing to challenge the first authorization directly because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

However, the court ruled he had standing to challenge the subsequent authorizations that did intercept his communications, and in doing so, he could seek to excise information from their supporting ITOs that was allegedly obtained in violation of his co-accused's Charter rights under the first authorization.

Liridon Imerovik pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking fentanyl and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He participated in a sophisticated scheme involving a pharmacist and a physician, trafficking an estimated 2780 fentanyl patches over several months.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of fentanyl, the calculated operation, Imerovik's integral role, the large quantity of drugs, and commercial gain.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, first offender status, youthfulness, and impressive efforts to address his fentanyl addiction, which was a significant motivator for his involvement.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives.

A sentence of 6 years in jail was imposed, reduced by 4 months for time spent on house arrest bail, resulting in a net sentence of 5 years and 8 months.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year s. 109(2)(a) order, a life s. 109(2)(b) order, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized cash.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 ml.

Police observed erratic driving and arrested the accused after observing signs of impairment.

Breath samples taken over two hours after driving showed readings of 204 and 194 mg/100 ml.

The accused testified she consumed approximately eight ounces of gin within 15 minutes prior to apprehension, arguing this "bolus drinking" created reasonable doubt as to her BAC at the time of driving.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired operation but acquitted her on the over 80 charge, finding that while her BAC exceeded the impairment threshold of 50 mg/100 ml, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it exceeded 80 mg/100 ml at the time of driving.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault based on evidence that the complainant was extremely intoxicated and incapable of consenting when the appellant engaged in sexual activity with her.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to consider whether the complainant's lack of memory raised a reasonable doubt regarding consent or honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were compelling and based on the totality of evidence demonstrating the complainant's extreme intoxication and incapacity to consent, not merely on the complainant's testimony.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending determination of his motion for leave to appeal his sentence to the Supreme Court of Canada under s. 40 of the Supreme Court Act.

The applicant had been convicted of four indictable offences related to unauthorized possession of a loaded .45 calibre handgun and was sentenced to 21 months imprisonment followed by two years probation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for release, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that his application for leave to appeal was not frivolous and that his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The accused, a pastor of a Spiritual Baptist Church, was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, administering a noxious substance, fraud, and theft relating to four female complainants.

The Crown sought to admit the evidence of the complainants as similar fact evidence, which the court allowed, finding no collusion.

The court rejected the defence's application to call an expert on memory reliability.

The court found that the accused used his position of spiritual authority to manipulate the complainants, including inventing a spiritual medium called 'the Gorgan' to extort money and induce sexual activity.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault, administering a noxious substance, and fraud relating to three of the complainants, but acquitted of the charges relating to the fourth complainant and certain theft charges.

The accused was charged with refusing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples.

The Crown's case was straightforward: the police had proper grounds to demand samples and the accused verbally refused.

The sole issue was whether the accused, whose first language was Russian, was provided meaningful access to counsel in a comprehensible manner.

The court found that the police took appropriate steps to accommodate the language barrier, including repeating rights, explaining them in plain language, arranging for a Russian-speaking officer, and securing a Russian-speaking duty counsel.

Although the accused claimed confusion about his legal obligations, the court found he understood his choices and their consequences through the translation provided during the breath testing procedure.

The conviction was upheld.

The offender was convicted after trial of conspiracy to export MDMA and possession of MDMA for the purpose of exportation under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The evidence established participation as a principal intermediary in a large-scale scheme exporting tens of thousands of ecstasy pills from Canada to the United States.

The court emphasized the scale of the operation, the substantial potential profits, and the need for general deterrence in commercial drug trafficking involving international exportation.

Although the offender had no prior criminal record and had supportive personal circumstances, the court found that only a custodial sentence would be proportionate.

Concurrent six-year penitentiary terms were imposed along with firearms prohibition and DNA orders.