Sam Boutzouvis

Rushaune Champagnie pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years with additional credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years concurrent on both counts, acknowledging the serious nature of the offence and the offender's lengthy record, but also considering his difficult upbringing, significant mitigating circumstances, and particularly harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court declined to apply additional credit for lockdown days beyond the statutory Summers credit, instead treating harsh conditions as a mitigating factor.

The accused was charged with possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking after police found cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl on him during a pat-down search.

The search occurred while police were executing a search warrant at an apartment where the accused was sleeping.

The accused applied to exclude the evidence, arguing the search violated his rights under s. 8 of the Charter.

The court found that while the police had grounds to detain the accused, they had no reasonable basis to conduct a safety pat-down search.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging that he was not provided his rights to counsel in a timely manner and was unable to consult with his counsel of choice.

The court found a technical breach of section 10(b) regarding the delay in providing rights to counsel (14 minutes from arrest to provision of rights), but determined that the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2) analysis.

The court also found no breach regarding the failure to provide counsel of choice, as the officer acted with reasonable diligence and the accused failed to act diligently in exercising his rights.

The accused was found guilty.