Ruth McGuirl

Sentencing decision arising from a guilty plea to multiple drug trafficking offences involving kilogram quantities of fentanyl and cocaine, together with possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm connected to a large-scale commercial trafficking enterprise.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as dominant objectives given the extreme community harm associated with fentanyl trafficking and the offender’s trusted role in maintaining a stash house, while recognizing his youth, guilty pleas, lack of record, rehabilitative efforts, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody as mitigating factors.

Alleged additional state misconduct relating to strip searches, disclosure access, religious restrictions, and institutional conditions was found to lack a sufficient evidentiary foundation, except that lockdowns and triple bunking were considered generally as mitigating conditions of custody.

Applying totality, the court directed the firearm sentence to run concurrently and imposed a global sentence of 9.5 years, reduced by Summers credit.

Sentencing decision for production of methamphetamine contrary to s. 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused participated in a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory as part of Project Odeon, a large-scale drug network investigation.

The accused played a lower-to-middle level role in the hierarchy.

Aggravating factors included participation in commercial drug production.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, guilty plea, genuine remorse, positive rehabilitative prospects, and collateral consequences from interrupted medical treatment during pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a 5-year sentence less pre-sentence custody credit, with 2 years probation.

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 accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic fentanyl and methamphetamine over a two-week period in October 2017.

The court found the accused was the directing mind and principal actor in a large drug trafficking conspiracy in Waterloo Region.

The accused possessed approximately three kilograms of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for distribution.

The court imposed a sentence of fifteen years imprisonment on the fentanyl conspiracy count, with a concurrent five-year sentence on the methamphetamine count, after crediting three years time served.

The court emphasized the severity of fentanyl trafficking and its devastating impact on the community.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, challenging the trial judge's decision to dismiss his Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through general warrants issued under s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the investigative technique could have been authorized under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, making the general warrant unavailable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding that the general warrant was properly issued because the investigative technique—prospective execution based on a future contingency to link drugs to the accused—was not contemplated by conventional search warrants, and there was no evasion of more stringent statutory requirements.

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 appellant operated a garden supply business and sold legal products to customers who used them in marijuana grow operations.

He was convicted of conspiracy to produce and traffic marijuana, as well as the substantive offences of production and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed the conspiracy convictions, holding that selling legal goods with knowledge of their intended illegal use does not make one a party to a conspiracy without a shared mutual objective.

However, the court upheld the substantive convictions on the basis that the appellant actually aided and abetted specific grow operations.

The Crown's appeal against the appellant's acquittal for money laundering was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of possession of Oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking after smuggling pills into a detention centre while serving an intermittent sentence.

She appealed her conviction and sentence of two years' imprisonment, arguing the trial judge erred in finding she had the requisite intent and misapplied the W. (D.) test.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the verdict reasonable based on the quantity and packaging of the pills, and upheld the sentence as fit and within the appropriate range.

The applicant corporation sought the return of $144,050 in cash seized by police during a drug and money laundering investigation targeting its former director.

The applicant argued it was the lawful owner of the funds, which it claimed were a business float, and that the funds were not required for the pending criminal proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that it was the lawful owner of the funds, and that the funds were required as evidence for the upcoming preliminary inquiry and trial.

The accused was found guilty under the Canada Elections Act of preventing or endeavouring to prevent electors from voting during the 2011 federal election.

He participated in a scheme that sent thousands of automated telephone calls directing targeted non-supporters to false polling locations.

The Crown sought 18 to 20 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence or a short, sharp sentence of 14 to 30 days.

The court emphasized the principles of denunciation and general deterrence, noting the severe impact of the conduct on the democratic process.

The accused was sentenced to 9 months' imprisonment followed by 12 months' probation.

The accused was convicted of preventing or endeavouring to prevent an elector from voting at the federal election held on May 2, 2011, contrary to the Canada Elections Act.

The accused, as communications director for the local Conservative candidate in Guelph, was a major and active participant in a scheme involving approximately 7,000 automated telephone calls directing targeted non-Conservative supporters to false polling locations.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months imprisonment followed by 12 months probation, emphasizing that general deterrence and denunciation were the primary sentencing principles given the serious nature of interference with the democratic electoral process.

During the 2011 federal election campaign in Guelph, Ontario, automated telephone calls were made to approximately 6,738 voters falsely indicating that their polling stations had been changed to another location.

The accused, Michael Sona, was the communications director for the Conservative Party candidate.

The Crown alleged that Sona was responsible for creating and placing these calls, or alternatively, that he was a party to the offence by aiding or abetting those who did.

The defence argued that while the circumstances raised suspicions, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found Sona guilty, determining that although the evidence did not establish he personally uploaded the messages to the automated calling service, he was actively involved in creating the scheme and was a party to the offence through aiding and abetting.

The applicant, a police officer convicted of drug offences, sought disclosure of the identity of an anonymous tipster who emailed police post-conviction alleging misconduct by the applicant's supervising officers.

The Crown provided a redacted summary but claimed confidential informer and public interest privilege over the author's identity.

The Court of Appeal held that neither privilege applied, as there was no express or implied promise of confidentiality to the unsolicited tipster, and no objective evidence to support public interest privilege.

The Court further held that the Trotta test for production in support of fresh evidence was premature, as the motion was properly characterized as one for directions on the scope of Crown disclosure.

The application for disclosure was allowed.

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.

The appellant appealed his sentence for an illegal entry offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge was entitled to impose the maximum penalty given the pattern of the appellant's crimes and association with illegal entries.

Although the sentencing judge did not clearly enunciate the credit given for pretrial custody, the total sentence imposed was fit.

The appeal was dismissed.