Reid Rusonik

The accused was charged with trafficking and possession for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following his arrest on August 8, 2018.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for delay.

Although the net delay of 15 months and 24 days fell below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court cases, the court found this was a rare and clear case warranting a stay.

The defence demonstrated meaningful steps to expedite proceedings while the Crown caused significant delays through unavailability and serious non-disclosure of search warrant materials for ten months.

The court granted the stay, finding the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

Seven appellants appealed their convictions for offences relating to a conspiracy to import and traffic in cocaine, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing their applications for a stay of proceedings based on breach of their Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The appellants contended that the 30-month presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework should not apply because the Crown preferred an indictment, thereby creating a one-stage proceeding subject to an 18-month ceiling.

They also argued that delay in preferring the indictment constituted "wasted" time and that systemic or institutional delay was not adequately considered.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the 30-month ceiling applied to cases tried in superior court regardless of whether a preliminary inquiry occurred, that the Crown's delay in preferring the indictment was justified and did not constitute wasted time, and that the case's particular complexity justified the delay beyond the presumptive ceiling.

The accused, Miguel Orlando Zavala-Martinez, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

At sentencing, the defence sought a stay of proceedings or a reduced sentence, arguing police misconduct in obtaining the search warrant constituted Charter violations (ss. 8 and 9) and an abuse of process.

The court found that the affiant police officer failed to be full, frank, and fair in drafting the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant, leading to an infringement of the accused's Charter rights.

While the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, it considered the state misconduct and the accused's personal circumstances (age, lack of criminal record, medical conditions, family responsibilities) as significant mitigating factors.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with a three-month probationary period, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, departing from the typical custodial range for such an offence.

The accused, Miguel Orlando Zavala-Martinez, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

At sentencing, new defence counsel sought a reduction in sentence, including an absolute discharge or suspended sentence, alleging egregious violations of the accused's Charter rights (sections 7, 8, 9) and police misconduct during the investigation and search.

The defence argued that the evidence presented to the jury was obtained through fabricated grounds and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant.

The Crown opposed, arguing that these issues should have been raised at a pre-trial admissibility hearing and that the sentencing court lacked jurisdiction to decide Charter violations at this stage.

The court denied the defence's claim of a section 7 Charter breach for non-disclosure but ruled that the defence could call a police witness to adduce evidence on the alleged Charter violations and state misconduct to determine if a sentence reduction is appropriate, potentially below statutory limits, in accordance with principles from R. v. Nasogaluak.

The defendants, David Brown and Daimian Johnson, pleaded guilty to cocaine trafficking offences.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the substantial quantities of cocaine involved and their high-level involvement in the drug trade, and mitigating factors such as their guilty pleas, personal circumstances, restrictive bail conditions, and the anonymous surrender of firearms.

For Johnson, the court also considered his testimony at another trial.

The Crown proposed sentences of five years for Brown and seven years for Johnson.

The court imposed sentences of four years and seven months for Brown and six years and five months for Johnson, granting modest additional credit for restrictive bail conditions and the surrender of firearms, and limited credit for Johnson's testimony, which was found to be of little assistance to the prosecution.

Ancillary orders for DNA samples and firearm prohibitions were also imposed.

Following a jury conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the accused retained new counsel and brought an application for a mistrial prior to sentencing.

The application alleged ineffective assistance by trial counsel for failing to bring a Charter application to challenge the search warrant.

The court dismissed the application, holding that a trial judge is functus officio once a jury verdict is recorded, and the proper remedy for an ineffective assistance claim at this stage is an appeal.

The accused, Justin Hung, applied to reopen his trial and declare a mistrial after being found guilty of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

Post-conviction analysis revealed significant inaccuracies in the Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) regarding the quantity and value of methamphetamine.

The original ASF stated 700.65 grams of methamphetamine (worth up to $46,800), but the actual amount was 15.54 grams (worth potentially much less, depending on market factors).

The court found that the incorrect high value of the drugs played a role in its initial assessment of the accused's credibility and the inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

Given that the fresh evidence could reasonably have affected the trial's outcome, the court allowed the application to reopen the case, set aside the finding of guilt, and declared a mistrial to ensure fairness and avoid any appearance of bias in re-evaluating credibility.

The court delivered reasons for sentence for the offence of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The sentence was based on a joint submission, reflecting the offender's first-offender status but also the large quantity of cocaine (over four kilograms).

The court accepted the joint submission, imposing an eight-year penitentiary sentence, reduced by 21 months for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 75 months to be served.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a 10-year section 109(2)(a) order, a lifetime section 109(2)(b) order, and a forfeiture order with a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $99,999, payable by September 20, 2027, with an 18-month consecutive jail term in default.

The defendants were charged with importing cocaine after a controlled delivery of a package from Colombia.

The package contained cocaine hidden inside metal grinding wheels.

One defendant accepted the package at his residence, while the other was observed driving nearby in apparent counter-surveillance.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either defendant knew the package contained imported cocaine.

Both defendants were found not guilty.

Zachary Barton was found guilty by a jury of multiple firearms offences.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings or a new trial, alleging police failed to preserve or disclose exculpatory video evidence.

The court dismissed this application, finding the defence failed to establish the existence of the alleged video footage.

Subsequently, the court proceeded to sentencing, considering Barton's extensive criminal record, the seriousness of the offences involving a loaded prohibited firearm, and sentencing principles.

A global sentence of 10 years imprisonment was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 6 years and 9 months.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA sample.

The applicant, Huntley Golding, sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights due to the confidential source's alleged lack of credibility and reliability, and the Information to Obtain (ITO) failing to establish a reasonable probability of illegal drugs.

The court, applying the Garofoli test, found that the issuing justice had a sufficient basis to grant the warrant, considering the totality of circumstances and the compelling first-hand information provided by the informant, despite her criminal record and motive to lie.

The application was dismissed.

Three accused were tried for drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences following a police investigation that resulted in three distinct seizures of cocaine and marijuana.

The court found the first accused not guilty, accepting his testimony that he was a 'blind courier' without knowledge of the drugs in the box he delivered.

The court found the second accused guilty of possessing cocaine found in a 'stash house', rejecting his cousin's exculpatory testimony and relying on circumstantial evidence of his control over the premises.

The court found the third accused guilty of possessing drugs found in his apartment, rejecting his testimony that the drugs belonged to a houseguest.

The applicants sought disclosure of handler's notes, investigative plans, and payment records relating to a confidential informant used in obtaining a search warrant.

The Crown opposed the disclosure, arguing the request was a fishing expedition.

The court held that while the handler's notes do not normally form part of the investigative file when the handler is not the affiant, the applicants met the "reasonable possibility" or "reasonable likelihood" test for disclosure.

The court found that on the face of the Information to Obtain, reasonable questions arose as to whether the claimed confidential informant was actually a police agent, which is a material issue on a Garofoli application.

The court ordered disclosure of the handler's notes subject to claims of blanket confidential informant privilege or editing, but declined to order disclosure of investigative plans.

The accused was charged with possession of a restricted firearm and readily accessible ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code after police executed a search warrant at a residence and located a handgun and ammunition in the accused’s bedroom closet.

The accused denied knowledge or control of the firearm and testified that numerous family members had access to the room in a crowded household.

Evidence showed that the search warrant was obtained following a social media post by the accused’s brother displaying a firearm.

The court found the accused’s testimony credible and accepted that multiple occupants could freely enter the room.

The evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused knowingly possessed the firearm or ammunition.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained following a warrantless arrest for suspected cocaine trafficking.

Police relied on anonymous tips and surveillance showing several brief meetings between the accused and unidentified individuals.

The court held that although officers honestly believed drug trafficking was occurring, the information from informants was unreliable and the observed meetings were capable of innocent explanation.

The police therefore lacked objectively reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

The arrest violated s. 9 of the Charter and the resulting searches of the accused and his vehicle infringed s. 8.

The accused was charged with assaulting a police officer causing bodily harm.

The incident occurred on New Year's Eve 2013/January 1, 2014 near Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto.

The Crown alleged that the accused head-butted Officer Bragg, causing facial fractures and other injuries.

The accused testified that he fell to the ground with Officer Bragg, and that Officer Bragg's head struck his head as they fell.

The court found that the evidence presented four completely different versions of events from the officers and the accused, making it impossible to determine how the injuries were sustained.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging a violation of s. 8 after police accessed and downloaded data from the airbag control module (ACM) of his vehicle without a warrant following a fatal motor vehicle collision.

The court held that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data stored on the vehicle’s onboard computer and that the police conduct in entering the vehicle, cutting the flooring, and imaging the data constituted an unreasonable warrantless search.

However, applying the framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The breach was moderate, the evidence was reliable and real, and society’s interest in adjudicating a fatal dangerous driving charge on its merits was high.

The accused was charged with weapons offences related to possession of an illegal handgun.

He brought an application to exclude the gun from evidence, alleging that police conduct violated his Charter rights.

The officer stopped the accused based on suspicion that he might be one of two Fountain brothers, one of whom might be wanted.

After clarifying the accused's identity and confirming no warrants existed, the officer continued to detain the accused to complete a field investigative report (FIR card).

When a third party suddenly interjected, the accused's demeanor changed and he adopted a blading stance.

The officer, concerned for safety, conducted a pat-down search and discovered the gun.

The court found an unlawful detention during the FIR process but held that the pat-down search was lawful as it was conducted in response to exigent circumstances triggered by the accused's sudden threatening posture.

The gun was admitted into evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

During a blended voir dire in a prosecution for possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, the Crown sought to admit a videotaped police interview with the accused.

The court assessed whether the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary under the common law confessions rule.

The evidence showed the interviewing officer repeatedly suggested that providing information was required for the accused’s bail report and failed to provide a police caution informing the accused that statements could be used against him at trial.

Considering the inducement relating to bail and the absence of a caution, the court found a reasonable doubt about voluntariness.

The statement was ruled inadmissible.

The accused was sentenced for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a guilty plea.

A general warrant executed at his residence revealed involvement in methamphetamine production and drug trafficking.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended 15 months' incarceration.

The key issue was whether a sentence reduction should be granted for the accused's surrender of significant contraband items, including a machine gun, methamphetamine, ephedrine, and GBL, valued at approximately $165,000.

The court distinguished between cooperation with police that leads to arrests or investigations versus mere surrender of items, ultimately imposing a nine-month sentence with a six-month credit for the surrender.