3 total
The accused was acquitted of drug, firearm, and explosives charges because the Crown failed to prove constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.
The accused, Talicia Bryan, faced multiple charges related to the possession of drugs, a loaded firearm, and explosive materials found during a police search of an apartment.
The Crown argued that the accused was in constructive or joint possession of the items, pointing to her occupancy of the apartment and the high value of the drugs.
The defence argued that the items belonged to an associate of the accused whose fingerprint was found on the firearm and who also had access to the residence.
The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the illicit items, resulting in her acquittal on all counts.
The court accepted a joint submission of six years' imprisonment for drug and firearm offences, awarding enhanced presentence credit for harsh jail conditions.
After trial, Dominic D’Angelo Wright was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences involving possession of a loaded handgun, large sums of cash, and various controlled substances.
A joint submission for a global sentence of six years was accepted by the court.
The sentencing considered an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment Report (IRCA) which detailed Mr. Wright’s challenging upbringing in a high-crime, low-income neighbourhood, his struggles with loss, substance abuse, and systemic discrimination.
Despite these mitigating factors, the court emphasized the seriousness of the offences, particularly the impact of opioid trafficking and gun possession on community safety.
Enhanced presentence custody credit was granted due to harsh incarceration conditions.
The sentence balances denunciation and deterrence with recognition of Mr. Wright’s rehabilitative potential, including his educational achievements while in custody.
Charter motion granted in part; utterances excluded due to s. 10 breaches, but real evidence admitted.
The accused brought a Charter motion seeking to exclude evidence of drugs, a firearm, explosives, and her utterances, alleging violations of her ss. 8, 9, and 10 rights.
Police had entered her apartment without a warrant following a 911 call about a violent assault, finding drugs and a firearm in plain view.
The accused was later located at another address, detained, and questioned without being advised of her right to counsel.
The court found that while the initial entry and a subsequent strip search were lawful, police violated s. 8 by remaining in the apartment pending a search warrant, and seriously violated ss. 10(a) and (b) by failing to provide rights to counsel.
Applying s. 24(2), the court excluded the accused's utterances but admitted the real evidence seized from the apartment.
