Sarah J. Curtis

The applicant was arrested for public intoxication under the Liquor Licence Act after an officer observed him urinating in an alley and exhibiting signs of impairment.

A subsequent search incident to arrest revealed controlled substances and currency.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence, arguing the arrest was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe the arrest was necessary for his safety.

The court agreed, finding breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), concluding that the Charter-infringing conduct was serious and its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine, heroin, and Oxycodone, each for the purpose of trafficking.

He was arrested in January 2009 after police surveillance observed approximately 25 persons visiting his central Toronto apartment within a four-hour period.

A search warrant yielded significant quantities of various drugs, drug paraphernalia, scales, baggies, and a debt list.

The offender, a 50-year-old first-time offender with no prior criminal record and no substance dependencies, had complied strictly with bail conditions for nearly three and a half years.

The Crown proposed a two-year reformatory sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were the paramount sentencing objectives, and imposed an 11-month custodial sentence followed by one year of probation with community service requirements.

The offender was convicted after trial of importing approximately 20.2 kilograms of marihuana into Canada contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offender acted as a courier and had no criminal record, stable employment, and positive community involvement, but showed no remorse and committed the offence while accompanied by a young child.

The court reviewed authorities addressing sentencing ranges for cannabis importation and distinguished the sentencing approach for marihuana from harder drugs such as cocaine, noting the domestic supply and lower relative harm.

Despite recognizing a sentencing range extending as low as 12 to 15 months in appropriate cases, the court found that the large quantity and commercial nature of the importation warranted a custodial sentence.

A conditional sentence was rejected due to the significant quantity involved and the need for denunciation and general deterrence in border importation offences.

The offender was convicted after jury trial of importing 3.532 kilograms of cocaine into Canada, contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court considered the applicable sentencing range for multi‑kilogram cocaine importation, noting appellate authorities establishing a typical range of six to eight years for couriers importing large quantities for personal gain.

Aggravating factors included the substantial quantity of cocaine, motivation for financial gain, limited remorse, and a prior drug-related conviction abroad.

Mitigating factors included a difficult upbringing and the limited role of the offender as a courier.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed an eight-year sentence with enhanced credit for pre‑trial custody.

The offender was convicted of multiple counts of trafficking cocaine, possessing proceeds of crime, offering to transfer a firearm, and possession for the purpose of trafficking following an undercover police operation.

The Crown sought a global sentence of five to six years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the large quantity of cocaine sold against the offender's significant community volunteer work, minor dated record, and compliance with bail.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years in penitentiary, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for possession for the purpose of trafficking in slightly more than a pound of cocaine.

The Court of Appeal noted that the normal range for a first-time offender in such cases is 5 to 8 years, and the sentence imposed fell below this norm.

However, due to unusual circumstances involving fairness concerns regarding how the respondent was persuaded to plead and litigation risks, the court declined to intervene and dismissed the appeal.