Sam Siew

The accused was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after pleading guilty to simple possession.

The accused, an addict, possessed 1103 'hits' of heroin, an amount exceeding personal use, and trafficked to his girlfriend.

Considering his extensive criminal record and the paramount principle of general deterrence for heroin trafficking, the court sentenced the accused to 3.5 years in a penitentiary, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, Tuan Duc Pham, was charged with producing and possessing methamphetamine and possession of chemicals for drug production after a fire at an industrial unit revealed a clandestine drug laboratory.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including Pham's fingerprint on a pop can found on the ground floor, and a cellular phone found on the mezzanine (where the lab was located) containing personal information linking it to Pham, as well as photographs of drug production equipment, including a hydrogen chloride cylinder identical to one found at the scene.

The court found that the cumulative circumstantial evidence established Pham's involvement in methamphetamine production and possession beyond a reasonable doubt, convicting him on those two counts, but acquitting him on the charge of possession of chemicals for future use.

Nicole Irish pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and parity, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision striking down mandatory minimum sentences for drug trafficking.

Despite defence counsel seeking a suspended sentence due to the accused's difficult life, drug addiction, and recent housing stability, the court found that exceptional circumstances for a non-custodial sentence were not present.

The court balanced aggravating factors, such as a lengthy criminal record and non-attendance at drug treatment, with mitigating factors, including a small quantity of drugs, a guilty plea, and rehabilitative progress since obtaining housing.

An intermittent sentence of 30 days and two years' probation was imposed, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and forfeiture of seized funds.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine and one count of possession of the proceeds of crime following a police dial-a-dope operation.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 6 to 12 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's personal circumstances, including his efforts at rehabilitation, as well as systemic factors contributing to the overincarceration of African Canadians.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, subject to strict conditions including house arrest and drug treatment.

The accused was arrested with 21.91 grams of heroin and pleaded guilty to simple possession.

The trial proceeded on the issue of whether the possession was for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused admitted he intended to deliver some of the heroin to his girlfriend, which the court found met the statutory definition of trafficking.

Furthermore, relying on expert police evidence regarding heroin pricing and consumption, the court found the accused possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking for profit to support his own addiction.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The applicant, Conrad Carter, sought a stay of proceedings or a reduced sentence after being unlawfully detained for approximately 36 hours, breaching s. 503(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and s. 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach.

The court found the over-holding serious, exacerbated by police failure to address the applicant's health complaints, though the conduct was deemed negligent rather than intentional.

Applying the "clearest of cases" test for a stay, the court determined that a stay was not warranted given the societal interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges.

The application for a stay was dismissed, but the court indicated it would impose a significant reduction in sentence as an alternative remedy for the Charter breach.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime after selling drugs to an undercover police officer.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing entrapment.

The undercover officer had called a phone number provided by a confidential informant and, after a brief initial exchange, asked to purchase drugs.

The court found that the police were conducting a bona fide investigation and had reasonable suspicion before presenting the opportunity to commit the offence.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at her home, restaurant, and vehicles in a drug trafficking investigation.

Police relied primarily on information from confidential informants and Crime Stoppers tips alleging drug dealing at a restaurant owned by the accused.

The court held that the Information to Obtain contained significant ambiguities regarding the identity of the female drug dealer and lacked sufficient corroboration linking the accused or her home to drug trafficking.

The issuing justice therefore lacked reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the search of the home.

The search violated s. 8 of the Charter, and after applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the drugs and money seized from the home.

The accused applied for leave to cross‑examine the affiant police officer regarding an information to obtain supporting several search warrants in a drug trafficking investigation.

The defence argued various alleged flaws and omissions in the affidavit undermined the existence of reasonable and probable grounds and justified cross‑examination under the Garofoli framework.

The court held that most proposed areas of questioning concerned alleged weaknesses on the face of the warrant that could be addressed through argument on a Charter s. 8 application and would not assist in discrediting the preconditions for issuance of the warrant.

Broad inquiries into confidential informant reliability were also rejected due to the risk of violating informer privilege.

Leave was granted only on a narrow ground permitting cross‑examination regarding the affiant’s experience with drug investigations and the basis for believing evidence would be found at the accused’s residence.

During a trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown sought to introduce a videotaped statement made by the accused to police.

A voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness of the statement and to hear a defence application alleging a breach of section 10(b) of the Charter.

The court ruled the statement inadmissible, finding a reasonable doubt as to its voluntariness due to an unexplained gap in the evidence regarding a significant conversation between the accused and unidentified officers prior to the interview.

Furthermore, the court found that the police breached the accused's right to counsel by failing to ensure he understood he was speaking to a lawyer, and that the statement would have been excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter in any event.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

At the close of the Crown's case, the accused brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on the proceeds of crime charge, arguing the evidence was entirely circumstantial and insufficient to support a conviction.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, engaging in a limited weighing of the circumstantial evidence.

The court found that the large quantity of drugs and cash found on the accused could reasonably support an inference that he had been trafficking prior to his arrest.

The application for a directed verdict was dismissed.

The accused brought a Corbett application to exclude his prior criminal record from cross-examination if he chose to testify.

The Crown conceded that a prior drug possession conviction would not be used, but sought to cross-examine the accused on three 1998 convictions for failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused argued the convictions were too remote and not relevant to credibility as they were not crimes of dishonesty.

The court dismissed the application, finding that failure to comply with a recognizance involves a breach of trust relevant to credibility, and that despite their age, the probative value of the convictions outweighed the minimal potential for prejudice.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application under s. 24(2) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings for alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The charges arose from a search warrant execution that resulted in drug trafficking and proceeds of crime allegations.

The total delay from arrest to the scheduled trial date was approximately 23 months.

The court held that most delay prior to committal was inherent or attributable to co‑accused difficulties in retaining counsel and scheduling pre‑trial proceedings, which was neutral delay.

The institutional delay of approximately 10 months in the Superior Court was within acceptable guidelines and the alleged prejudice from the death of a potential defence witness was not causally connected to any Crown or institutional delay.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 25.3 grams of crack cocaine hidden in his clothing following arrest.

At sentencing, the court rejected the offender’s claim that the drugs were for personal use, finding him to be a commercial trafficker based on the quantity of drugs, the organization of cash seized, and expert evidence regarding trafficking practices.

The court considered whether a conditional sentence was appropriate given that the offence pre‑dated legislative amendments restricting such sentences.

Applying the principles of deterrence and denunciation, the court found a conditional sentence inconsistent with the purposes of sentencing.

A custodial sentence was imposed together with probation and ancillary orders including forfeiture of proceeds of crime.

The accused was charged with three drug-related offences (possession of marijuana, possession for purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime) and three provincial offences (assaulting a peace officer and two counts of failing to comply with recognizance).

During a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation, a police officer observed the accused with his hand in his jacket pocket and smelled unburned marijuana.

The officer placed his hand on the accused and pushed him back into the vehicle, then subsequently pulled him out to effect an arrest.

A physical altercation ensued.

The trial judge found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to arrest, violated the accused's Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and used excessive force.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was tried on five criminal charges arising from an incident on July 10, 2011, in a Toronto Community Housing Complex known for drug and gang activity.

Police officers, responding to community complaints about drug trafficking, encountered the accused in the complex.

When approached, the accused fled, and during the chase, officers observed him reaching into his waistband and discarding a substance.

Officers apprehended him and found crack cocaine in his possession.

The accused was charged with unlawful possession of cocaine and marijuana, wilfully obstructing a police officer by falsely identifying himself, failing to comply with a recognizance condition regarding drug abstinence, and failing to comply with a probation order to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The court found the accused guilty of cocaine possession, obstructing police, and failing to comply with probation, but dismissed the marijuana possession charge and the breach of recognizance charge.