Robert Greenway

The accused was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking.

The offences involved 28.7 grams of cocaine and 183.6 grams of fentanyl seized from a rental vehicle and a residential search.

The court found the accused to be a mid-level trafficker motivated by financial gain.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as inconsistent with the fundamental sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence given the large quantity of fentanyl, and imposed a penitentiary sentence.

Significant mitigating factors — including five years of compliance with stringent bail conditions, prosocial conduct, and severe collateral consequences to young children — reduced the sentence from a starting point of eight years to a net sentence of six years, reflecting one year credit for restrictive bail conditions and three days of pre-trial custody.

This criminal trial concerned three sexual assault charges against J.D., involving his daughter LG, allegedly committed when she was 6-7 years old.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's and the accused's testimony, along with other witnesses.

Despite LG's credible demeanor, the court found significant inconsistencies and inaccuracies in her memory, particularly regarding corroborating details.

The accused's testimony, corroborated by a third-party witness, was found to be credible and reliable.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

The applicant, Randall Devries, sought to exclude evidence obtained by police, arguing that their entry onto his property, subsequent arrest, and vehicle search violated his Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the police were authorized to enter the property to investigate impaired driving complaints, and the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The defendant, Zachary Collins, was found guilty of 11 counts related to drug and firearm offenses.

The defence brought an entrapment application concerning the firearm charge (Count 11), arguing that an undercover police officer induced the commission of the offence, going beyond merely providing an opportunity.

The court applied the two-branch test for entrapment from R. v. Mack and R. v. Ahmad.

The court found that while the police had reasonable suspicion, their conduct did not amount to inducement.

Despite the officer's persistence in inquiring about firearms, the defendant consistently indicated a willingness to procure them and initiated contact regarding the firearm transaction on October 1.

The court concluded that the police merely provided an opportunity, and the defendant chose to follow through.

The entrapment application was dismissed.

This is a voluntariness ruling in a preliminary inquiry concerning charges of trafficking in a Schedule I substance (fentanyl) and manslaughter.

The Crown sought to admit a video-recorded police statement made by the accused.

The court applied the contextual voluntariness test, considering factors such as threats, promises, inducements, atmosphere of oppression, operating mind, and police trickery.

Despite the accused repeatedly asserting his right to silence and expressing internal conflict, the court found that he had an operating mind and freely chose to speak.

The court concluded that the statement was made voluntarily and was therefore admissible for the purposes of the preliminary inquiry.

This preliminary inquiry determined if there was sufficient evidence to commit the accused, Jacob Norn, to trial for trafficking in fentanyl and manslaughter.

The defence conceded the trafficking charge but argued against committal for manslaughter, asserting insufficient evidence regarding causation, particularly concerning the victim's consumption of other substances (Etizolam).

The court reviewed evidence including text messages, e-transfer records, security video, witness testimony, and forensic toxicology reports, which indicated the victim died from combined fentanyl and etizolam toxicity.

Applying the legal test for preliminary inquiries (the Shephard test) and the essential elements of unlawful act manslaughter, the court found reasonable inferences available to a properly instructed jury that the fentanyl supplied by the accused was a significant contributing cause of death.

Consequently, the accused was committed to stand trial on both charges.

The three defendants, Tuan Tai Le, Ba Loc Nguyen, and Phap Hong Nguyen, pleaded guilty to cultivating cannabis plants in excess of the amount permitted by law at a licensed grow operation.

The Crown sought a six-month incarceration, while defence counsel requested absolute discharges.

The court found that the defendants were manual labourers with minimal moral culpability, having mistakenly believed their work was lawful due to cannabis legalization.

They suffered significant collateral immigration consequences, including loss of legal status and inability to work or return home.

The court dismissed the Crown's request for incarceration, finding it disproportionately punitive, and granted absolute discharges to all three defendants, deeming it in their best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The accused, Dwayne Hopkins, was charged with drug possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop.

He sought to exclude evidence, arguing that his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) Charter rights were violated by a pretextual arrest for a Highway Traffic Act offence.

The court found that the police officer used the HTA arrest as a ruse to facilitate a criminal drug investigation and search, thereby violating the accused's s. 8 and s. 9 rights.

Additionally, the officer violated s. 10(b) by failing to inform the accused of his right to counsel when the investigation shifted to drugs.

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the drugs found on the accused's person due to the significant privacy violation but admitted the drugs found in the vehicle, noting a lesser expectation of privacy and the likelihood of inevitable discovery.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the contents of a backpack found in the vehicle, leading to an acquittal on all charges.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought four-year penitentiary sentences for both.

The sentencing judge found that Michael Hillier played the more significant role in the trafficking enterprise, which was motivated by a desire to support his partner's extended maternity leave.

Brittny Blain played a lesser role, primarily as a driver.

The judge imposed a two-year-less-a-day custodial sentence on Hillier followed by three years' probation, and a suspended sentence with three years' probation for Blain.

The decision emphasizes the importance of considering rehabilitation, restraint, and individualized proportionality in sentencing drug offenders, particularly those struggling with addiction.

The defendant was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test results, alleging violations of Charter rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The Crown established reasonable grounds for an approved screening device demand based on speeding, sudden maneuvers, odour of alcohol, red eyes, and information that the defendant had recently left a bar.

The court found no Charter breach despite a nine-minute delay in obtaining the device, as the delay was not foreseeable and occurred in three segments where the officer reasonably believed the device would arrive imminently.

The court also found no violation of the right to counsel, as there was no realistic opportunity to consult counsel during the roadside investigation.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

He challenged the admissibility of breath test results, claiming violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 and 10(b).

The defendant argued that he was not adequately informed of his right to free legal advice at the roadside before providing samples to the approved screening device.

The court found that the police fully complied with the informational requirements of section 10(b) and that any confusion on the defendant's part was not apparent to the officers.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with publishing an intimate image without consent contrary to section 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused sent a screenshot of a video depicting the complainant engaged in sexual intercourse to the complainant's boyfriend and posted it on Facebook without consent.

The key issue was whether the image constituted an "intimate image" as defined in the Criminal Code.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the image was intimate, as it depicted nudity and explicit sexual activity, was made in circumstances giving rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the complainant retained that expectation of privacy at the time of the offense.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was stopped, detained, and searched by Durham Regional Police while walking near the courthouse.

Police claimed they believed he resembled a wanted person (Tyrone Hylton) and that he attempted to flee and destroy evidence.

The defendant was found in possession of 7 grams of crack cocaine.

The defendant challenged the detention and search as arbitrary and unreasonable.

The court found that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for either the detention or search, as the resemblance between the defendant and the wanted person was superficial and based primarily on race.

The court also rejected the police evidence that the defendant attempted to flee or swallow drugs.

Finding violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the court applied the section 24(2) analysis and excluded the evidence, resulting in acquittal.