R. McGuirl

The applicants brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for first-degree murder and criminal organization charges arising from a large wiretap investigation (Project Siphon).

The total delay was 39 months for the homicide and over 41 months for the criminal organization charges.

After deducting defence delay and a two-month discrete exceptional circumstance for the COVID-19 pandemic, the net delay remained above the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found the remaining delay was justified by the particular complexity of the case, which involved voluminous disclosure, numerous targets, and complex privilege issues.

The applications were dismissed.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The offender was convicted of conspiracy to produce and possess marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, having operated a business that supplied equipment to large-scale marijuana grow operations.

The Crown sought forfeiture of real properties, vehicles, and bank accounts as offence-related property and proceeds of crime, as well as a fine in lieu of forfeiture for unrecovered funds.

The court ordered the forfeiture of the commercial property used for the business, the offender's residence, and several vehicles.

The court also imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $2,809,211.40 for unrecovered proceeds of crime.

The offender was sentenced to 20 months' incarceration.

The accused, owner of a hydroponics and garden supply store, was charged with conspiracy to produce and possess marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, aiding and abetting those offences, and money laundering.

The Crown alleged the accused operated his store as a 'one-stop shop' to supply marihuana grow operations, using clandestine business practices to protect customers' identities.

The court found the accused guilty of the conspiracy and aiding and abetting charges, concluding he knew and intended that his products and services would facilitate marihuana grow operations.

However, the accused was acquitted of money laundering, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the funds used to purchase 'ghost ownership' properties were derived specifically from the production of marihuana rather than unreported store profits.