Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR–18–9–383
DATE: 2019-10-04
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
NICOLE IRISH
Counsel:
Kandia Aird, for the Crown
Mary Murphy, for the accused
HEARD: June 18-21, 2019 & August 16, 2019
P.J. Monahan J.
Reasons for Judgment
[1] Nicole Irish is charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5 (2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.[^1] She is also charged with possession of proceeds of crime of a value not exceeding $5000, contrary to s. 354 (1) of the Criminal Code,[^2] as well as with failure to comply the terms of a probation order without reasonable excuse, contrary to s. 733.1 (1) of the Criminal Code.
[2] On June 28, 2017, police executed a search warrant at Ms. Irish’s one-bedroom apartment located at 155 Sherbourne St. in Toronto.[^3] Police found 5.29 grams of cocaine in a small plastic bottle hidden in Ms. Irish’s bra, as well as a further 17.68 grams of cocaine in a safe in Ms. Irish’s bedroom. They also found $2025 in cash in a purse sitting on the arm of the sofa in the living room of the apartment, five digital scales (two of which were on the sofa and three others in a kitchen cupboard), and three cellular phones.
[3] Two other women were present in the apartment at the time of the search. However neither of them was charged and they did not participate in the proceedings.
[4] Ms. Irish testified and maintained that the 5.29 grams of cocaine found in her bra was intended for her personal use and not for trafficking. She further stated that the 17.68 grams of cocaine found in the safe in her bedroom belonged to her friend Deborah Middleton and that she (i.e. Ms. Irish) had no knowledge of it. Ms. Middleton also testified and claimed that the safe belonged to her and that she had stored the cocaine in the safe without Ms. Irish’s knowledge.
[5] Ms. Irish acknowledged that the $2025 found in the purse was hers but stated that this was mainly obtained from cashing an ODSP cheque she had recently received, as well as from her activity in the sex trade. She denied that the money represented proceeds obtained through trafficking in cocaine. She also stated that most of the digital scales were not working, and that she used these scales to measure the quantity of cocaine she purchased for her own use in order to ensure she had obtained the correct amount.
[6] On this basis, Ms. Irish maintained that she is entitled to an acquittal on all four counts.
[7] The Crown argued that the evidence of Ms. Irish and Ms. Middleton was simply not credible and was inconsistent with a variety of other evidence adduced at trial. The Crown urged me to reject Ms. Irish’s and Ms. Middleton’s evidence and, on the basis of the totality of the evidence, to convict Ms. Irish on the four counts in the indictment.
Applicable Legal Principles
a. The Presumption of Innocence and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
[8] The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our criminal justice system, guaranteed by s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The presumption of innocence, and along with it the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, are important and necessary safeguards to ensure that no innocent person is convicted of an offence and wrongfully deprived of his or her liberty.
[9] Thus, Ms. Irish is presumed innocent of the charges brought against her and this presumption remains with her unless and until the Crown proves her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a heavy burden that remains on the Crown and never shifts.
[10] I remind myself of the meaning of the phrase proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A reasonable doubt is not an imaginary or frivolous doubt. It is not a doubt based on sympathy for or prejudice against anyone involved in this trial. It is a doubt based on reason and common sense, one that arises logically from the evidence or absence of evidence. It is not enough for me to believe that Nicole Irish is probably or likely guilty. In that circumstance I am required to give the benefit of the doubt to Ms. Irish and acquit her because the Crown would have failed to satisfy me of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
[11] I also recognize that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not proof to an absolute certainty. But the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt falls much closer to absolute certainty than to probable guilt. I recognize that I must consider all of the evidence and be sure that Nicole Irish committed the offences with which she is charged before I can be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of her guilt.
b. Assessing Credibility
[12] Ms. Irish testified in her own defence and to reach a verdict in this case I must assess her credibility. This task does not simply involve choosing which version of events I prefer. The decisive question is whether, considering the evidence as a whole, the Crown has proven Ms. Irish’s guilt on the offenses alleged, beyond a reasonable doubt.
[13] The correct approach in cases such as this was set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W.(D.),[^4] where the Court directed, first, that if I believe the evidence of Ms. Irish that she did not commit the offences with which she is charged, I must find her not guilty. Second, even if I do not believe her testimony of Ms. Irish, if it leaves me with a reasonable doubt of her guilt regarding any of the offences charged, I must find her not guilty of the relevant offenses. Third, even if Ms. Irish’s testimony does not leave me with any reasonable doubt as to her guilt, I must still consider whether the evidence I do accept satisfies me of her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
c. Crown’s Burden in cases of circumstantial evidence
[14] As will be apparent, the Crown’s case in relation to the key matters in dispute is primarily circumstantial. I remind myself that in such a case the Crown must prove that the only rational conclusion to draw from the whole of the evidence is that Ms. Irish committed the offences in question.
Count 1
[15] Ms. Irish acknowledges that she was in possession of the 5.29 grams of cocaine found in her bra, which forms the basis for count 1 in the Indictment. The only issue on this count is whether Ms. Irish possessed the cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
[16] Section 2 (1) of the CDSA defines the activity of “trafficking” in a substance as including “to sell, administer, [or] give” the substance. Ms. Irish maintained that she had no intention to do any of these things as the cocaine was for her personal use only.
a. Evidence on Count 1
[17] In support of its position that Ms. Irish was in possession of the 5.29 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown tendered the expert evidence of Detective Constable Stacey McCabe. DC McCabe was accepted as an expert in the street-level distribution and sale of crack cocaine. DC McCabe also indicated that as part of her work she works as an undercover officer purchasing cocaine, ostensibly for her own use.
[18] DC McCabe testified that when she is purchasing cocaine at the street-level as part of her undercover work, she generally purchases either .20 or .40 of a gram of crack cocaine. DC McCabe stated that in instances where she attempts to purchase in excess of 1.5 grams of crack cocaine, she is generally challenged as to whether it is for her own use. DC McCabe stated that if she attempted to purchase 5.29 grams of cocaine, she would either have to have a prior established relationship with her dealer, or else she would have to hold herself out as purchasing for more than just personal use. DC McCabe did acknowledge that it was possible that a user could purchase as much as 5.29 grams of cocaine for personal use, although this would be unusual since it would require the user to come up with a substantial amount of money (approximately $500) for cocaine that would not be used immediately.
[19] DC McCabe also indicated that the presence of over $2000 Dollars in Cash on the sofa in Ms. Irish’s living room strengthened her opinion that Ms. Irish was engaged in trafficking in cocaine. She also noted that it is common for commercial drug traffickers to have various items to assist in the packaging and distribution of cocaine, including scales and cellular phones. The presence of these items in Ms. Irish’s apartment further strengthened her opinion with respect to Ms. Irish’s drug trafficking activity.
[20] Ms. Irish testified in her own defence. She is currently 46 years old and acknowledged that she has been addicted to cocaine since she was 16 years old. She uses on a daily basis and supports her habit through her monthly ODSP cheque of approximately $600, as well as through activity in the sex trade. She has an extensive criminal record, including prior convictions for trafficking in cocaine.
[21] With respect to the 5.29 grams of cocaine found in her bra, Ms. Irish indicated that she generally purchases a sufficient amount of cocaine once she receives her ODSP cheque at the end of the month, so that she does not have to be “running up and down the streets” buying cocaine. She stated that she has regular dealers with whom she has a relationship and that this enables her to purchase this quantity for her personal use. When the cocaine was discovered in her bra, Ms. Irish immediately informed the police officer who was searching her that the cocaine was for her own use.
[22] With respect to her consumption pattern, Ms. Irish testified that depending on her state of mind, she could consume a gram of cocaine in as short a period as 15 or 20 minutes. However she generally attempts to keep her mind occupied on other things and it may take her half a day to consume a gram of cocaine.
[23] Ms. Irish testified that only one of the digital scales that were found in her apartment was functioning. She further stated that she uses digital scales to weigh drugs she has purchased for personal use, so as to ensure that she received the correct amount, rather than as part of trafficking activity. With respect to the cellular phones that were found in her apartment, she stated that she only used one of the phones. One other phone had been left there by a friend and the other was broken.
[24] Ms. Irish explained that the majority of the $2000 in cash that was found in her apartment had come from an ODSP cheque. She had also obtained some cash payments from a couple of her regular sex trade clients earlier that day.
[25] Ms. Deborah Middleton, a close personal friend of Ms. Irish’s with whom she shares cocaine on a daily basis, also testified as part of the defence case. Although much of her evidence was directed to Count 2 (i.e. the issue of whether Ms. Irish had knowledge of the cocaine found in the safe in her bedroom), certain portions were relevant to count 1. In particular, Ms. Middleton stated that in June 2017, both she and Ms. Irish were engaged in trafficking in cocaine, although Ms. Irish’s trafficking activity was “not on my [i.e. Ms. Middleton’s] level”.
b. Analysis
[26] I have significant concerns about the credibility of Ms. Irish’s testimony with respect to her intended use of the 5.29 grams of cocaine found in her bra.
[27] First, while Ms. Irish indicated that she is a daily user of cocaine, she did not suggest that she would use anywhere near 5.29 grams of cocaine in a single day. In fact, she indicated that she had purchased this significant quantity so that she would not have to be “running up and down the streets” buying cocaine. If Ms. Irish was actually intending to consume the 5.29 grams of cocaine over a number of days (as opposed to on the day of the search itself), there would have been no reason for her to be carrying it around on her person. Thus I infer that she was carrying the 5.29 grams of cocaine in her bra so that it would be readily available for sale or distribution to others throughout the day.
[28] I also find that Ms. Irish’s explanation for the significant amount of Canadian currency that was found in her apartment to be implausible, for a number of reasons. First, Ms. Irish claimed that “most of” the cash was obtained as a result of her cashing an ODSP cheque. However, no details were provided as to when she had received this cheque or when she had cashed it. More significantly, her monthly cheque is approximately $600. This means that her claim that “most of” the $2000 had come from her ODSP cheque simply cannot be true.
[29] In addition, the $2025 in cash was found in a purse that was sitting on the arm of the sofa in the living room, next to a digital scale. There would be no reason for Ms. Irish to have this large amount of money sitting in a purse in plain view if she did not have some immediate use for it. I also note that the purse containing the cash was sitting beside a digital scale, commonly used in connection with drug trafficking. The logical inference is that this money represented the proceeds of her ongoing trafficking activity, rather than money she obtained from cashing an ODSP cheque.
[30] Ms. Irish also would have had to have paid approximately $500 in cash to obtain the 5.29 grams of cocaine. No explanation was provided as to how she could have made this purchase from her acknowledged sources of income (i.e. ODSP and a couple of regular sex trade clients) in addition to the $2025 in cash on her sofa. This suggests that she financed the purchase of the 5.29 grams of cocaine through proceeds obtained from her trafficking activity, and was intending to sell the cocaine to further support her drug habit.
[31] Ms. Irish’s explanation for the digital scales in her apartment is similarly implausible. Even assuming that most of the scales were no longer functioning, one of the scales was found on the sofa next to the purse containing the Canadian currency. Ms. Irish maintained that she used the scales to weigh cocaine she had purchased for her own use, to ensure that she had received the right quantity. But if this were so, there would be no reason to have the scale sitting on her sofa. The presence of the scale on her sofa suggests that she was using that scale in connection with drug transactions occurring during the course of the day.
[32] These concerns are sufficiently serious as to cause me to reject Ms. Irish’s testimony with respect to the purpose for which she was possessing the 5.29 grams of cocaine. Nor does her evidence raise a reasonable doubt as to her purpose in possessing this cocaine.
[33] Nevertheless, before I can find Ms. Irish guilty in relation to count 1, I must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence which I do accept, that Ms. Irish possessed the cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
[34] There is considerable evidence which, considered in its totality, points overwhelmingly towards this conclusion.
[35] First, I accept the evidence of DC McCabe that purchases of cocaine for one’s own use generally do not exceed 1.5 grams of cocaine. I accept DC McCabe’s evidence that a purchase of over five grams of cocaine is indicative of an intention to sell or distribute the cocaine to others.
[36] Second, as discussed above, if Ms. Irish was intending to consume the cocaine herself over a number of days, there would have been no reason for her to be carrying it on her person. The logical inference is that she was carrying the cocaine in her bra so that it would be readily at hand for sale or distribution to others on an ongoing basis throughout the day.
[37] Third, Ms. Irish had no plausible explanation as to the source of the approximately $2000 in Canadian currency that was found in a purse sitting on her sofa. I accept DC McCabe’s evidence that the presence of this amount of currency reinforces the conclusion that Ms. Irish was engaged actively in drug trafficking.
[38] Fourth, according to DC McCabe, 5.29 grams of cocaine would have cost in the range of $500. There is simply no explanation for how Ms. Irish could have come up with the cash for the 5.29 grams, in addition to having $2000 in cash in her apartment, other than through her trafficking activity.
[39] Fifth, I accept DC McCabe’s testimony that the presence of digital scales in the apartment is a further indicia of drug trafficking activity. If Ms. Irish’s only use for the scales was to weigh the cocaine she had purchased for her own use there was no reason to have a scale sitting on her sofa. The presence of the digital scales sitting next to the purse containing a substantial amount of cash reinforces the conclusion that both the scales and the cash were associated with Ms. Irish’s drug trafficking activity.
[40] Sixth, in the course of her cross-examination, Ms. Middleton acknowledged that both she and Ms. Irish were trafficking in cocaine in June 2017.
[41] Seventh, I note that Ms. Irish acknowledged that she shares cocaine on a daily basis with her friend Deborah Middleton, who comes over to her apartment on most days. As noted above, the definition of “traffic” in the CDSA does not require a sale but includes merely giving the substance to another person. Thus by her own admission, she was intending to share some portion of the 5.29 grams of cocaine with Ms. Middleton, which would be sufficient in and of itself to make out the offence of trafficking.
[42] Eighth, a Special Constable with the Toronto Community Housing Corporation testified that over the years there had been numerous calls for service relating to Ms. Irish’s apartment on the 14th floor of 155 Sherbourne Street. These calls related to complaints regarding disturbances in and around Ms. Irish’s unit. These calls were consistent with drug trafficking activity taking place in Ms. Irish’s apartment.
[43] Taking all of these considerations into account, the only rational conclusion to be drawn is that Ms. Irish possessed the 5.29 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking. I therefore find her guilty of count 1.
Count 2
[44] Count 2 relates to the 17.68 grams of cocaine that were found in a safe in Ms. Irish’s apartment. There is no dispute that this quantity of cocaine which, according to DC McCabe, would have had a street value of approximately $3500, is consistent with an intent to traffic. However, Ms. Irish maintains that she had no knowledge of the presence of the cocaine in her apartment and thus was not in possession of it.
a. Evidence
[45] In the course of the search of Ms. Irish’s apartment, a safe was found in her bedroom. The safe was brought out into the living room area of the apartment. The officers asked Ms. Irish if she could open the safe but she indicated she could not. One of the officers was able to force the safe open with the battering ram that had been used to breach the apartment door. Inside the safe was 17.68 grams of cocaine along with a $50 bill.
[46] Ms. Irish testified that although the safe was kept in the bedroom of her apartment it actually belonged to her friend Ms. Middleton. Ms. Middleton had purchased the safe as a result of a break-in at her own apartment about a month prior to the search. Ms. Irish testified that she understood that Ms. Middleton was keeping cash in the safe and that she was completely unaware that there were any drugs there. Ms. Irish testified that Ms. Middleton would regularly go into her bedroom to access the safe, but Ms. Irish would remain in the living room and never saw what Ms. Middleton had or put in the safe. Ms. Irish did not know the combination or have any keys that would allow her to access the safe on her own.
[47] Ms. Middleton testified as part of the defence case. Ms. Middleton is 52 years old and has been a user of crack cocaine since she was 25 years old. She and Ms. Irish have been friends for many years and trust each other. Ms. Middleton acknowledges that she currently uses cocaine on a daily basis and that she finances her drug habit through trafficking in the substance. In June 2017 she was coming over to Ms. Irish’s apartment on a daily basis and they would usually share cocaine with each other. Ms. Middleton testified that Ms. Irish does traffic in cocaine but “not on her [i.e. Ms. Middleton’s] level”.
[48] Ms. Middleton testified that she decided to purchase a safe after her apartment had been broken into and a quantity of drugs and cash stolen. She went to Home Depot with Ms. Irish in order to purchase the safe so as to have a safe place to store her drugs and cash. Ms. Irish agreed to store the safe in the bedroom of her apartment.
[49] Ms. Middleton testified that she told Ms. Irish that she was keeping cash and nothing else in the safe. Ms. Middleton claimed that Ms. Irish would not have allowed her to store crack cocaine in her apartment, because this would have jeopardized Ms. Irish’s liberty. Ms. Middleton testified that she decided to lie to Ms. Irish about the cocaine in the safe because it was “none of her business”.
[50] Ms. Middleton would come over to Ms. Irish’s apartment every day with a quantity of cocaine and some digital scales in her pocket. She might share some of the cocaine with Ms. Irish and, unbeknownst to Ms. Irish, secretly put the unused amount in the safe or, alternatively, remove some cocaine from the safe in order to sell on the street. Ms. Middleton indicated that she would use the digital scales in her pocket to measure the cocaine that she might take out of the safe. This activity would occur entirely in the bedroom and, although Ms. Irish was present every time Ms. Middleton came over, Ms. Irish always remained in the living room and never saw what Ms. Middleton was doing in the bedroom.
b. Analysis
[51] I find that there is simply no air of reality to the evidence of Ms. Irish and Ms. Middleton to the effect that Ms. Irish had no knowledge of the cocaine in the safe in her bedroom.
[52] First, Ms. Middleton’s account of her purpose in acquiring the safe was internally contradictory. Ms. Middleton testified that she purchased the safe because of the break-in at her apartment in which a quantity of cash and drugs had been stolen. Even if I accept Ms. Middleton’s testimony that she, rather than Ms. Irish, acquired the safe for her own use, her purpose in doing so must necessarily have included providing for a secure location for the storage of her drugs. Moreover this purpose was known to Ms. Irish, since Ms. Irish was aware of the break-in at Ms. Middleton’s apartment and assisted Ms. Middleton in buying the safe. In fact, the safe contained mostly crack cocaine and only $50 in cash, which indicates that a primary purpose of the safe was to store drugs. So the claim that the safe was being purchased merely to store cash proceeds from cocaine trafficking, but not cocaine, is inconsistent with Ms. Middleton’s stated purpose for the purchase of the safe.
[53] Second, neither Ms. Irish nor Ms. Middleton provided any plausible explanation as to why or how Ms. Middleton would have stored a significant quantity of cocaine in Ms. Irish’s apartment without the latter’s knowledge. Ms. Irish claimed that she would never have allowed Ms. Middleton to store cocaine in her apartment because this would have “jeopardized her freedom”. Ms. Middleton claimed to be aware that this was Ms. Irish’s view. Instead of finding another location for her cocaine, she decided to store the cocaine in Ms. Irish’s bedroom and to deceive Ms. Irish by telling her that there was nothing but cash there.
[54] This explanation defies logic and common sense, for a variety of reasons. First, Ms. Irish acknowledged that she herself had a quantity of cocaine in her apartment, in the form of the 5.29 grams of cocaine she was carrying in her bra. Even if the safe contained just the cash proceeds of Ms. Middleton’s drug trafficking activity, this cash, combined with the cocaine Ms. Irish had in her bra, would have been sufficient to “jeopardize her freedom”. Thus the suggestion that Ms. Irish would have allowed Ms. Middleton to store cash proceeds from her trafficking activity in her apartment but not the drugs themselves, so as not to jeopardize her freedom, makes no sense.
[55] The logistics of this arrangement also defy credulity. Ms. Middleton would apparently go into Ms. Irish’s bedroom every day, open the safe, and measure out a quantity of cocaine using digital scales she brought with her in her pocket. She would then take the cocaine with her, with the unsuspecting Ms. Irish being none the wiser. But Ms. Irish was always present, sitting in the living room of her small one-bedroom apartment, whenever Ms. Middleton went into her bedroom to open the safe and access her cocaine. The act of weighing out a quantity of cocaine would have taken some amount of time, certainly more time than required if Ms. Middleton had simply been depositing or withdrawing cash. Thus it would have been obvious to Ms. Irish that Ms. Middleton was lying if the latter had tried to suggest that the safe contained nothing by cash.
[56] I also find it telling that Ms. Middleton was mistaken as to the contents of the safe. She stated that the safe contained 31 grams of cocaine, 4 ounces of “weed”, some lighters, and a ripped $50 bill. Not only did she significantly overestimate the amount of cocaine, there was no “weed” and no lighters found in the safe. This suggests at the very least that Ms. Irish must have had access to the safe, and therefore knew that there was cocaine being stored there.
[57] The suggestion that Ms. Middleton was engaged in a subterfuge whereby she secretly stored cocaine in her good friend’s apartment because it was “none of her [Ms. Irish’s] business” also makes no sense. By their own accounts, the women were close friends. They assisted and helped each other, and shared cocaine on a daily basis. There had been no falling out or disagreement between them prior to June 28, 2017. There was simply no explanation offered by either Ms. Irish or Ms. Middleton as to why the latter would deceive the former on such a significant matter as the storage of cocaine in Ms. Irish’s apartment.
[58] In short, I simply do not believe Ms. Irish’s evidence that Ms. Middleton was storing a significant quantity of crack cocaine in a safe in her bedroom without her knowledge. Ms. Irish was familiar with the drug subculture, having been an addict for 30 years and having engaged in drug trafficking in the past. She was also close friends with Ms. Middleton and was aware of the latter’s addiction to crack cocaine and her drug trafficking activity. I do not believe that Ms. Middleton would have betrayed her friend by storing cocaine in her bedroom without telling her. Moreover, even if Ms. Middleton had for some reason attempted to secretly store drugs in the safe, this would have been obvious to Ms. Irish who, had she been genuinely concerned about it, could have put a stop to it.
[59] I therefore reject Ms. Irish’s evidence that she was unaware of the cocaine in the safe in her bedroom. Either Ms. Irish herself was storing her own cocaine in the safe, or she was aware of the fact that Ms. Middleton was doing so. In either event, the only rational conclusion to be drawn from the totality of the evidence is that Ms. Irish was aware of the cocaine in the safe, and I so find.
[60] In order to establish “possession” for purposes of the CDSA, it is necessary to prove both knowledge and control of the thing being possessed.[^5] The question this raises is the significance, if any, of the possibility that Ms. Irish may not have had the ability to access the safe in her bedroom because she didn’t have a combination or keys.
[61] Section 4 (3) (b) of the Criminal Code provides that “where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, it shall be deemed to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them.” Ms. Irish acknowledged in her evidence that she had consented to having the safe being stored in her bedroom. Moreover, she was the sole lessee of the apartment and had the right to control access to that space. As such, it is clear that, assuming she had knowledge of the cocaine in the safe (which I have already found to be the case), she also consented to the cocaine being present in her bedroom. She therefore had sufficient “control” of the cocaine to establish possession of it for purposes of the CDSA.
[62] There is no dispute over the fact that the quantity of cocaine in the safe, namely, 17.68 grams, is inconsistent with personal use and therefore necessarily supports the conclusion that it was being possessed for the purpose of trafficking.
[63] I therefore find that the Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Irish possessed the 17.68 grams of cocaine in the safe in her bedroom for the purposes of trafficking and find her guilty on count 2.
Count 3
[64] Count 3 alleges that Ms. Irish was in possession of proceeds of crime of a value not exceeding $5000, namely, the $2025 found in the purse in Ms. Irish’s living room.
[65] Ms. Irish acknowledges that she was in possession of this money. The only issue in dispute is whether the money represented proceeds of crime.
[66] I have earlier considered this issue in my analysis in relation to count 1 and concluded that Ms. Irish could not have acquired this quantity of cash from her acknowledged sources of income (namely, her monthly ODSP cheque as well as her activity in the sex trade). Thus the only rational explanation for this money is that it represents proceeds of Ms. Irish’s drug trafficking activity.
[67] I therefore find Ms. Irish guilty of count 3.
Count 4
[68] Count 4 alleges that Ms. Irish was in breach of a term of a probation order made on July 14, 2016, namely, that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour. This probation order was in effect on June 28, 2017. Given my findings that Ms. Irish was engaged in drug trafficking activity at that time, it necessarily follows that she was also in breach of this term of the probation order. I therefore find her guilty of count 4.
Conclusion
[69] I find Ms. Irish guilty on all four counts in the Indictment.
P. J. Monahan J.
Released: October 4, 2019
[^1]: S. C. 1996, c. 19, as amended (the "CDSA"). [^2]: R. S. C. 1985, c. C – 46 (the "Criminal Code"). [^3]: Prior to the trial proper, Ms. Irish brought a motion seeking to have the search warrant set aside on the basis that the Information to Obtain provided an insufficient basis for the issuance of the warrant. In separate reasons delivered orally at the conclusion of argument on the motion, I found that the search warrant had been validly issued and executed and, therefore, the evidence obtained through the search was properly obtained is admissible at trial. [^4]: 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 ("W.D."). [^5]: See the definition of "possession" in s. 4 (3) of the Criminal Code, which is incorporated into the CDSA, s. 2.