Roderick W. A. Sonley

The accused faced a 60-count indictment following 'Project A-Wire', an RCMP investigation into drug trafficking, weapons, proceeds of crime, extortion, and criminal interest rates.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications, surveillance, and physical evidence seized from multiple locations, including a stash apartment, a bar, and the accused's residence.

The court found the accused guilty of conspiring to traffic in cocaine, marijuana, and hashish, and of leading a criminal organization.

The accused was also convicted of possessing prohibited and restricted firearms, possessing proceeds of crime, extortion, and entering into agreements to receive interest at a criminal rate.

The accused was acquitted of receiving payments at a criminal interest rate and one count of extortion.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion alleging breaches of s. 8 of the Charter arising from a warrantless search of his iPhone by CBSA officers at an airport upon re‑entry into Canada.

The defence sought exclusion of the phone contents, subsequent wiretap authorizations, and evidence obtained through search warrants, arguing the border search was a pretext for a police investigation and that the authorizations lacked investigative necessity.

The court held that a cell phone constitutes “goods” under the Customs Act and that CBSA officers are authorized to conduct routine border searches of such goods without prior grounds.

The search was characterized as a first‑category routine border search under R. v. Simmons and therefore reasonable.

Even if a breach had occurred, exclusion under s. 24(2) was not warranted because the state conduct was not serious and the evidence was central to the prosecution.

The defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict acquitting him of four counts related to cocaine trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including numerical text messages sent from the defendant's phone to a co-accused's phone.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, considering whether the circumstantial evidence was reasonably capable of supporting the inferences the Crown asked the jury to draw.

The court found there was some direct and circumstantial evidence to support the inference that the defendant was a party to an agreement to sell cocaine, and therefore dismissed the motion.

During a criminal trial for drug trafficking offences involving cocaine and cannabis, the Crown sought to qualify an RCMP officer as an expert to provide opinion evidence regarding drug trafficking indicators, drug jargon, and related matters.

The defence objected, arguing the proposed evidence lacked relevance and necessity and that the witness lacked independence due to police bias.

Applying the test for expert evidence in R. v. Mohan, the court held that some proposed opinions were relevant and necessary to assist the jury, including opinions regarding the level of trafficking indicated by seized items and the use of drug-related jargon.

However, opinions concerning cocaine purity, the role of weapons in trafficking, and evidence relating to hashish or trafficking hierarchies were excluded as irrelevant or unnecessary.

The officer was qualified to give expert opinion evidence only on limited issues.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of statements made to police following arrest during a large-scale drug trafficking investigation.

He argued that police failed to properly inform him of the reasons for his detention under s. 10(a) of the Charter and that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) was infringed, rendering his waiver invalid.

The court found that advising the applicant he was being arrested for drug trafficking and conspiracy to traffic drugs sufficiently informed him of the nature of his jeopardy.

The court further held that the applicant validly waived his right to counsel and later spoke with counsel before a subsequent interrogation.

Although additional details about the investigation were provided several hours after arrest, any delay was minor in context and did not justify exclusion of the statements under s. 24(2).

Addendum to reasons for decision correcting the allocation of sentence between offences in a criminal matter.

The court confirmed that the amended warrant of committal properly reflected the distribution of the total sentence across the offences.

The total custodial sentence remained seven years after applying four years of pre‑sentence custody credit.

The addendum clarified that the amended warrant accurately corresponds with the earlier reasons for decision.

The offender was convicted of multiple offences including trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic as part of a mid-level drug operation known as Project Bulldawg.

Despite strong family support and evidence that the offender was an addict-trafficker, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the kilogram-level quantities and prior trafficking record.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, reduced to 4 years after crediting 12 months for strict pre-trial bail conditions, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The Crown appealed from the respondents' acquittals, which followed the trial judge's finding of a Charter violation and exclusion of marijuana evidence under s. 24(2).

The trial judge rejected the police officer's evidence that the discovery of the marijuana and seizure of toy guns were simultaneous, and found the continuation of the search after confirming the guns were toys was inappropriate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's credibility findings, standing determinations, or s. 24(2) analysis, which are entitled to substantial deference.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on three respondents.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentences for Robert Thiffeault Jr. and Robert Thiffeault Sr. given their minor involvement and mitigating factors.

For Donald Harrison, the Court found the trial judge erred as his role was more significant and warranted a reformatory sentence.

However, based on fresh evidence and his compliance with his conditional sentence, the Court declined to incarcerate him.

The appeals were dismissed.