Sabina Burdo

The accused, a 39-year-old American citizen with no prior criminal record, was convicted by a jury of importing approximately 4.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The court considered the aggravating factor of the large quantity of cocaine and mitigating factors including the accused's background of poverty and systemic anti-Black racism, as well as harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court rejected the defence argument that the accused's status as a foreign national who would likely face a removal order and be ineligible for day parole warranted a sentence below the established range.

The accused was sentenced to 6 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The 20-year-old first-time offender pled guilty to possession of a restricted firearm and possession of 117 kg of cocaine and 3.8 kg of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court balanced the paramount sentencing objectives of rehabilitation and individual deterrence for youthful offenders against the need for denunciation and general deterrence given the enormous quantity of drugs and the presence of a loaded handgun.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, comprising 8 years for the drug offence and 2 years consecutive for the firearm offence, less credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The accused, Athena King, was stopped by police and found in possession of illegal drugs.

She challenged the admissibility of the evidence, alleging breaches of her Charter rights during the stop, search, and arrest.

The court found minor breaches of her right to counsel but held that these did not warrant exclusion of the evidence.

King was found guilty of all charges.

The appellant, Jomal Brown, appealed his convictions for possession of various illicit drugs for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of trafficking, and several firearm offences.

The appeal also challenged the application judge’s dismissal of his Charter application, which was denied on the basis that Brown had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the unit where the items were seized.

During appeal preparation, Crown counsel identified a trial fairness issue: the Crown had taken inconsistent positions regarding Brown’s residence in the unit at different stages of the proceedings.

With the consent of both parties, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and Charter ruling, and ordered a new trial on all issues.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing proceeds of crime and his 26-month sentence.

He argued the verdict was inconsistent with his acquittal for possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and that the trial judge erred in her circumstantial evidence analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence of knowledge and control over the cash was compelling, unlike the evidence regarding the cocaine.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge properly considered the collateral immigration consequences but correctly concluded that a sentence under six months would not adequately address the gravity of the offence.

The defendant, Samuel Osei-Tutu, was convicted by a jury of importing cocaine (2.8899 kg) and was before the court for sentencing.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the defence proposed 4.5 years (net 4 years) due to mitigating factors.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the quantity and commercial nature of the drug, and mitigating factors including the defendant's lack of a criminal record, strong community support, and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court also considered the impact of anti-Black racism on sentencing, as per R. v. Morris.

A sentence of 5.5 years (net 5 years after pre-trial credit) was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences following a shootout between individuals associated with two vehicles on a residential street.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, a single particle of gunshot residue (GSR) on the accused's jacket, and his possession of a key fob for one of the vehicles.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's identity as the shooter due to discrepancies in clothing, the presence of a possible third person, and the unreliability of the GSR evidence.

The court also found insufficient evidence to prove the accused had knowledge of the drugs concealed in a backpack in the vehicle's trunk.

The accused was acquitted of all charges except for one count of simple possession of cocaine, which he conceded.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking after police found fentanyl mixtures hidden in his vehicle.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's ownership of the vehicle and documents found inside, to prove constructive possession.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as evidence showed multiple other individuals had access to and used the vehicle.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

Three accused were tried for various drug-related offences following a controlled delivery of a package containing cocaine imported from Suriname.

The package was intercepted by the CBSA and picked up by Williams using fake identification.

Williams transferred the package to Allen, who fled from police.

Nwankwo was later arrested reaching into the trunk of Allen's car where the package was stored.

The court found Williams not guilty on all counts, as the Crown failed to prove he knew the package contained cocaine.

Nwankwo was found guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Allen was found guilty of conspiracy to import, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to possess, but not guilty of a separate possession charge relating to cocaine found in his residence.

The accused, a racialized single mother with a history of socio-economic disadvantage, was convicted by a jury of importing 1,390 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drug, and the mitigating factors including the accused's lack of a criminal record, compliance with bail, and systemic racial and socio-economic disadvantages.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate but deviated below the established range of four to six years due to the systemic forces that constrained the accused's choices, sentencing her to three years imprisonment.

The offender, a 29-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of importing two kilograms of cocaine concealed in her luggage at Pearson Airport.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the defence sought three and a half years, arguing for a reduction due to Covid-19 risks in prison.

The court found no specific health vulnerabilities to justify a Covid-19 reduction but considered the offender's lack of prior record, compliance with bail, remorse, and strong family support as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, less three days of pre-sentence custody credit, along with mandatory weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.

The applicant, jointly charged with two co-accused for importing cocaine, brought an application for an adjournment of the trial due to his counsel's unavailability, or alternatively, for severance from his co-accused or severance of one count.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding that the applicant's right to counsel of choice did not override the co-accused's right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The court also dismissed the severance applications, concluding that the factors, including the risk of inconsistent verdicts and the legal nexus between the counts, strongly favoured a joint trial.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after returning to Canada from Jamaica with four tins containing the drug.

The accused admitted to importing the tins but claimed she did not know they contained cocaine, believing she was transporting non-drug items for a friend.

The defence sought to introduce expert psychological evidence regarding the accused's intellectual capacity to support her lack of knowledge, which the court ruled inadmissible as unnecessary for assessing credibility.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's testimony raised a reasonable doubt about her knowledge of the drugs.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with possession of two controlled substances (cocaine and oxycodone) and failing to comply with the terms of his recognizance.

Following a high-speed pursuit and traffic stop, police observed a baggie of cocaine in the accused's waistband and arrested him.

A subsequent search of the vehicle revealed oxycodone pills.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on reasonable grounds, but determined there was a breach of the accused's Charter rights under section 10(b) regarding the delay in providing rights to counsel.

The cocaine and health card were admitted as evidence, but the oxycodone was excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was convicted of possession of cocaine and failing to comply with recognizance, but acquitted of the second possession charge.