Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 3878648
DATE: 20210303
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
YURI BROWNE
Counsel:
Alexia Bystrzycki, for the Crown
Kristen Dulysh, for Yuri Browne
HEARD: October 26, 27 & 29, 2020, and January 15, 2021
BEFORE: Garton J.
REASONS on entrapment application
[1] The applicant, Yuri Browne, age 44, has been found guilty of trafficking in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime. At the conclusion of the trial, he brought an application to stay the proceedings on the basis that he was entrapped by the police into committing the offences.
[2] This case involves a classic dial-a-dope scenario. On January 12, 2019, Detective Constable Spencer Fraser (“Fraser”) passed on information from a confidential informant to Detective Constable Chaitanya Joshi (“Joshi”). The information was that a male with the nickname “Bro” was selling powder cocaine and using a certain telephone number to conduct his business. Pretending to be a prospective client, Joshi dialed the number and eventually arranged to buy cocaine. He subsequently met with Mr. Browne and completed the transaction: Mr. Browne gave Joshi 1.31 grams of powder cocaine in exchange for $150 of police buy money, after which Fraser ordered a takedown and Mr. Browne was arrested.
[3] The sole issue on this application is whether there was reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was involved in drug trafficking before Joshi provided him with an opportunity to commit the offence. The parties agree that prior to Joshi making the call to Mr. Browne, there were insufficient grounds for the police to claim reasonable suspicion. The issue, therefore, is whether reasonable suspicion emerged during the course of Joshi’s phone conversations with Mr. Browne. In accordance with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R. v. Ahmad, 2020 SCC 11, 445 D.L.R. (4th) 1, the contents of the calls must be scrutinized.
Factual Background
[4] Joshi has been a member of the Toronto Police Service for 10 years and a member of the Drug Squad for two years. He had done several undercover drug buys prior to the investigation involving Mr. Browne.
[5] Joshi testified that he received the following information from Fraser: a male, Black, 28-35 years old individual known as “Bro” was selling powder cocaine in the Thornhill/GTA area. Fraser also gave Joshi the telephone number that the male was using to conduct his business and the drop name “Alex.” Joshi testified that Fraser did not given him any other information about Alex or tell him that Bro also sold crack cocaine.
[6] When asked if it was possible that Alex was a made up name, Joshi testified that it was highly unlikely, as that is the name he was specifically instructed to use when speaking to the target. He agreed that at the Discovery, when asked if it was his understanding that Alex was not a made up name, he stated, “I was simply provided a name. I didn’t think about whether it’s made up or not.” He testified that he was telling the truth when he gave that answer. He explained, however, that having been asked a direct question at trial in regard to the use of drop names, it was his understanding, based on his experience, that a drop name is typically an actual person.
[7] Fraser testified that “Alex” could be a real or fictitious name as dealers have a huge client base and not everyone uses their real name in the drug trade. He did not given Joshi a description of Alex. Nor did he tell him that Alex was from the Bathurst and Steeles area. He added, however, that it would make sense that Alex was from there as that was the area associated with the target. Fraser testified that he told Joshi that the target sold both crack and powder cocaine. He did not give Joshi any information about the price that the target charged for his drugs. Fraser had not made any notes in his memo book about the information that he passed on to Joshi.
[8] On January 12, 2019, at 8:41 p.m., Joshi called the number provided to him by Fraser and spoke to the applicant, Mr. Browne. Joshi recorded their conversation in his notebook as follows:
T1: Hello
UC: Hey Bro, what’s up? You around?
T1: Who is this?
UC: It’s me (UC name)
T1: Who?
UC: (UC name) from Brampton.
T1: I don’t know anyone by that name.
UC: Bro, I got your number from my girl.
T1: Who is your girl?
UC: Cindy.
T1: I don’t know her.
UC: Yeah, she knows Alex.
T1: Who is that?
UC: He’s from Bathurst and Steeles.
T1: What does he look like?
UC: I don’t know how you want me to describe him Bro, male, white, 30’s, blonde.
T1: But I don’t know you.
UC: I know. I don’t know you either.
T1: No, sorry. I’m not going to do this.
UC: I understand. It’s up to you, that’s fine Bro.
[9] Joshi testified that in asking the target, “You around?” he was asking him if he was open for business in terms of selling drugs. He testified that he made up the name “Cindy,” the description of Alex, and that Alex was from the Bathurst and Steeles area. He understood from Mr. Browne’s statement, “I’m not going to do this” that the target did not want to talk to him or proceed any further.
[10] Joshi testified that he does not continue with a call when a target indicates that they do not want to interact with him. Thus, in this case, he had no intention of calling the target again. However, ten minutes later, at 8:51 p.m., he received a call from the same phone number. He recognized the voice as that of the male to whom he had just spoken. He recorded their conversation in his notebook as follows:
UC: Hello?
T1: Yeah, okay, so we can meet. I talked to Alex. We good. What do you need?
UC: Half b soft.
T1: Yeah, okay. No problem.
UC Where do you want to meet?
T1: Come to Moxie’s at Dufferin and Steeles. [Joshi testified that he mistakenly noted “Moxie’s” as opposed to “Montana’s” as the meeting place.]
UC Yeah, I will come. How much money?
T1: If you know Alex, you will know how much I charge.
UC: Okay. I’m on my way from Brampton. Give me an hour.
T1: No problem.
[11] Joshi understood, based on his experience, that the target’s question, “What do you need?” was an inquiry as to what type of drug he was looking for. He testified that his answer – a “half b soft” – is a term that drug dealers understand and that it refers to “half a ball” or approximately 1.7 grams of cocaine.
[12] In cross-examination, Joshi was questioned further with respect to what he understood from the target’s statement, “Okay, so we can meet. I talked to Alex. We good. What do you need?”
Q. And the mention of Alex is not an indication to you that the target is trafficking drugs?
A. No, it just means that he knows Alex.
Q. So, based on the fact that you were told initially that the target was selling cocaine, you felt comfortable asking him for drugs at that point when he said, “What do you need?”
A. Well, he asked me, “What do you need?” and that’s when I told him.
Q. So, that language in particular is what made you comfortable asking for drugs?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. And was there anything else that you based that decision on, or was it that language solely?
A. No, just the language. He tells me he knows Alex, we’re good, what do you need.
[13] Following this conversation, Joshi attended a Toronto Drug Squad briefing and was given $150 in police buy money. He testified that this amount of money was “on the higher end” and that he was not willing to pay more than that.
[14] Joshi drove to the area of Dufferin and Steeles and pulled into the parking lot near Montana’s. At 9:52 p.m., he called the target’s number. It went to voicemail. He did not leave a message. One minute later, he called the number again. The target answered and directed him to another location. Their conversation was as follows:
T1: Hello?
UC: Bro, I’m here.
T1: Okay, come to Dufferin and Finch.
UC: What do you mean, Bro? You told me to come here at Montana’s.
T1: Yeah, I know. Now I’m telling you to come to Scotiabank at Dufferin and Finch.
UC: You can’t come here?
T1: No, come to Scotiabank.
[15] At 10:04 p.m., Joshi received an incoming call that was a missed call. At 10:07 p.m., he called the same number that he had been in contact with throughout the evening and spoke to Mr. Browne:
T1: Hello?
UC: Bro, I’m on my way.
T1: Yeah, well, I’m not there anymore. I left.
UC: You left already?
T1: Yeah. I don’t like it when I have to wait around.
UC: I’m sorry, Bro. You told me to come to Montana’s and then you tell me Scotiabank.
T1: It doesn’t matter to me where all you got to drive. It doesn’t take 15 minutes to come to Scotiabank from Montana’s.
UC: Okay. So, now what?
T1: Now nothing. I have left.
[16] At 10:08 p.m., Joshi called the same number once more:
T1: Hello?
UC: You being serious Bro, you left?
T1: Yeah, I am on the highway.
[17] At 10:16 p.m., Joshi received another call from Mr. Browne’s number. He noted the following conversation:
UC: Hello?
T1: I got Alex, talk to him.
UC: Okay, Bro.
Alex: He’s my guy. Why you giving him a hard time?
UC: I’m sorry. I’m not trying to be hard. He told me to come to Montana’s at Dufferin and Steeles. I get there, then he tells me to come to Scotiabank. I come here and he tells me he left.
Alex: Okay, but you can’t do that.
UC: Okay. I’m telling you what happened. Don’t know what else I can do. If I keep being told to drive from one place to another.
T1: This is not a game.
UC: I know it’s not. I’m sorry.
T1: I’m coming now, stay here, we’re on the way.
UC: Okay. I’m not going. I’m at Scotiabank.
[18] Joshi testified that “Alex” spoke with an accent. His voice was quite different from that of the target. He thought that it may have been a three-way phone call.
[19] Joshi testified that at 10:27 p.m., a burgundy-coloured car parked beside his undercover vehicle on the passenger side. The driver, Mr. Browne, was the sole occupant of the vehicle. Joshi rolled down his front passenger window. Mr. Browne rolled down his driver’s side window and told him to “come here.” Joshi got out of his vehicle and walked over to Mr. Browne, who told him to get into his car. Their conversation was as follows:
UC: What’s up, Bro?
T1: What are you saying? Come inside my car.
UC: Can we just do this right here?
T1: Yeah, I got what you need, come inside.
UC: I can’t come inside, Bro.
T1: Why not?
UC: Because I feel nervous, Bro.
T1: Nervous about what?
UC: Anything can happen once I get inside your car.
T1: Yeah, but you need to get in if we gonna do this.
UC: I can’t Bro, I’m sorry.
T1: Nothing will happen.
UC: Can’t you see how nervous I am?
T1: Nothing will happen.
UC: I can’t Bro. Can you not come in my car?
T1: Anyone that knows me knows that I do this in my car. It’s too bait outside.
UC: There’s no one around, Bro.
T1: Yeah, but why you so nervous?
UC: I’ve had bad things happen in the past.
[20] At this point, Joshi observed Mr. Browne accessing a knapsack, from which he retrieved a small metal box. Mr. Browne asked Joshi, “How much money you got?” Joshi replied, “$150.” Mr. Browne told him to “give it over.” Joshi handed the money to Mr. Browne, who then gave him three grey knotted bags that he had taken from the metal box. The bags were later found to contain 1.31 grams of powder cocaine.
[21] When the deal was completed, Joshi gave the “deal done” signal and left the area. The takedown was ordered, and Mr. Browne was arrested.
The Issue
[22] The sole issue is whether Officer Joshi had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was involved in drug trafficking before providing him an opportunity to commit the offence.
The Test for Entrapment
[23] In R. v. Mack, 1988 CanLII 24 (SCC), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, the Supreme Court at pp. 964-65, set out the two principal categories of entrapment. The defence is available when either:
(a) the authorities provide a person with an opportunity to commit an offence without acting on a reasonable suspicion that this person is already engaged in criminal activity or pursuant to a bona fide inquiry; or
(b) although having such a reasonable suspicion or acting in the course of a bona fide inquiry, they go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence.
[24] The second branch of the test does not apply in this case as Mr. Browne does not assert that he was induced into committing the offences.
[25] The applicant bears the onus of establishing on a balance of probabilities that the police conduct amounted to entrapment. A stay of proceedings should only be entered in the “clearest of cases”: Mack, at pp. 974-977.
[26] In Ahmad and its companion appeal, R. v. Williams, the Supreme Court dealt with entrapment in the context of “dial-a-dope” drug purchases. In each case, police received information regarding phone numbers used to obtain illicit drugs. Officers called the numbers, engaged in a brief conversation with those who answered, agreed to buy drugs, and set up meetings to obtain their purchases. When the drug dealers arrived, they were arrested and charged with drug-related offences. Both Ahmad and Williams appealed separately on the basis that they had been entrapped. Their appeals were heard together. Ahmad’s appeal was dismissed but Williams’ appeal was allowed.
[27] A majority of the Court in Ahmad found that in conducting drug purchase investigations, the police must form a reasonable suspicion that the person answering is engaged in criminal activity prior to making an offer to buy drugs. At para. 45, the Court stated that the “reasonable suspicion” standard is not unduly onerous. At para. 46, the Court approved that standard as it is described in R. v. Chehil, 2013 SCC 49, [2013] 3 SCR 220 – that is, that reasonable suspicion requires a “constellation of objectively discernable facts” giving the officer “reasonable cause to suspect” that a certain kind of crime was being committed “by a particular person or in a particular place.”
[28] In R. v. Kang-Brown, 2008 SCC 18, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, at para. 75, Binnie J. described a reasonable suspicion as follows:
“Suspicion” is an expectation that the targeted individual is possibly engaged in some criminal activity. A “reasonable” suspicion means something more than a mere suspicion and something less than a belief based upon reasonable and probable grounds.
[29] In Chehil, at para. 27, the Court made clear the distinction between “reasonable grounds to suspect” and “reasonable and probable grounds to believe”:
Thus, while reasonable grounds to suspect and reasonable and probable grounds to believe are similar in that they both must be grounded in objective facts, reasonable suspicion is a lower standard, as it engages the reasonable possibility, rather than probability of crime. As a result, when applying the reasonable suspicion standard, reviewing judges must be cautious not to conflate it with the more demanding reasonable and probable grounds standard.
[30] In Ahmad, the Court found that reasonable suspicion could arise during a dial-a-dope investigation based on the engagement with a particular target, so long as it was formed before the police presented the opportunity to commit the crime. If the information that the police had prior to the call did not meet the reasonable suspicion standard, the wording of the exchange between the accused and the undercover officer would have to be evaluated.
[31] The facts in the cases of Ahmad and Williams were summarized by Akhtar J. in R. v. Henry, 2020 ONSC 6059, at paras. 16-17:
In Ahmad’s case, the police asked him whether he went by the name described in the tip (Romeo) and he did not deny this. When the officer asked, “You can help me out?”, Ahmad responded positively and enquired “What do you need?” The Court found that this exchange connected the tip to the man who answered the phone. Moreover, Ahmad’s response (“What do you need?”) demonstrated an understanding of drug subculture and slang used within that culture. This constellation of events gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Ahmad was involved in selling drugs before the formal request for drugs: Ahmad, at para. 76.
In Williams’ case, however, the responses were different: the police did not wait to see how Williams would respond to an investigative question that would confirm Williams’ involvement in the drug trade. Instead, after introducing himself, the officer told Williams that “Jesse from Queen and Jarvis gave me your name … your number. Said you could help me out. I need 80.” In other words, the offer to buy was made before Williams provided information giving rise to reasonable suspicion. As a result, he was entrapped: Ahmad, at para. 80.
[32] In Ahmed, the Court found that the opportunity to commit the offence arose when the officer asked for “2 soft” (drug slang for two grams of cocaine). Thus, reasonable suspicion would have to arise prior to those words being spoken. The Court found that the prior exchange created the required suspicion. The officer’s words “Can you help me out?” did not constitute an offer to traffic drugs but the accused’s words, “What do you need?” created reasonable suspicion along with the earlier exchange where Ahmad did not deny that he was Romeo.
[33] In the case of Williams, the Court found that although Williams confirmed that he was “Jay,” which was consistent with the information provided by the confidential informant to the police, confirmation of the name alone did not meet the reasonable suspicion standard. Williams had responded positively to drug-trafficking slang but only after the opportunity to buy had been provided by the undercover officer. The one aspect of the tip that was corroborated prior to the opportunity to buy – “Jay’s” name – was insufficient to ground a reasonable suspicion as it did not strengthen the reliability of the tip “in its assertion of illegality”: Ahmad, at para. 80.
Was Mr. Browne Entrapped?
[34] As stated, the sole issue is whether a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was involved in drug trafficking emerged during the first two phone calls and before Joshi made the offer to buy drugs from him.
[35] For ease of reference, I have reproduced the first two conversations between Joshi and Mr. Browne below:
First Call (from Officer Joshi to Mr. Browne) at 8:41 p.m.
T1: Hello
UC: Hey Bro, what’s up? You around?
T1: Who is this?
UC: It’s me (UC name)
T1: Who?
UC: (UC name) from Brampton.
T1: I don’t know anyone by that name.
UC: Bro, I got your number from my girl.
T1: Who is your girl?
UC: Cindy.
T1: I don’t know her.
UC: Yeah, she knows Alex.
T1: Who is that?
UC: He’s from Bathurst and Steeles.
T1: What does he look like?
UC: I don’t know how you want me to describe him Bro, male, white, 30’s, blonde.
T1: But I don’t know you.
UC: I know. I don’t know you either.
T1: No, sorry. I’m not going to do this.
UC: I understand. It’s up to you, that’s fine Bro.
Second call (from Mr. Browne to Officer Joshi) at 8:51 p.m.
UC: Hello?
T1: Yeah, okay, so we can meet. I talked to Alex. We good. What do you need?
UC: Half b soft.
T1: Yeah, okay. No problem.
UC Where do you want to meet?
T1: Come to Moxie’s at Dufferin and Steeles.
UC Yeah, I will come. How much money?
T1: If you know Alex, you will know how much I charge.
UC: Okay. I’m on my way from Brampton. Give me an hour.
T1: No problem.
The First Call
[36] Officer Joshi did not have to have a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was engaged in drug trafficking before he called him on January 12, 2019 at 8:41 p.m. It was just a step that he took in order to investigate the information given to him by Fraser.
[37] During the first conversation, Joshi repeatedly addressed Mr. Browne as “Bro,” which was the nickname provided by the confidential informant to Fraser. Joshi used the name “Bro” four times during the call. At no point did Mr. Browne deny that his name was Bro. However, given that “bro” is also a word that may be used to address a male friend, Mr. Browne’s failure to deny that he was “Bro” does not necessarily mean that he was acknowledging that that was his name. In these circumstances, the fact that Mr. Browne did not deny that he was “Bro” does not carry the same weight as, for example, the accused’s failure in Ahmad to deny that he was “Romeo.” However, it is still a factor for consideration.
[38] Joshi opened his conversation with the question, “Hey Bro, what’s up? You around?” In the drug subculture, the question “you around?” means, “Are you open for business?” The same question was posed by the undercover officer in Henry, as well as the undercover officer in R. v. Stubbs, 2012 ONSC 1882. As noted by Corrick J. in Stubbs, the question, “You around?”, coming from a stranger, would seem rather obscure to most people. However, Mr. Browne did not hang up the phone, ask Joshi what he was talking about, suggest to Joshi that he had the wrong number or express surprise. Instead, Mr. Browne asked Joshi for his name. Joshi gave him his undercover name, told him that he got his number from his girl, Cindy, and then used the drop name, Alex: “She knows Alex.”
[39] Mr. Browne then proceeded to ask Joshi questions about Alex. Joshi told him that Alex was from the area of Bathurst and Steeles and described him as “white, 30’s, and blonde.” Mr. Browne did not comment or take issue with any of that information. He did not say, for example, “I don’t know anyone like that.” Instead, he responded, “But I don’t know you,” from which it could be implied that he did know Alex.
[40] Mr. Browne then concluded the call by stating: “No, sorry. I’m not going to do this.” I agree with Crown counsel that this statement suggests that Mr. Browne understood that Joshi’s call was drug-related. When it is considered along with or in conjunction with the second call, it clearly indicates, in my view, that Mr. Browne knew that Joshi’s call was drug-related.
[41] Since Mr. Browne was not prepared to interact with him, Joshi had no intention of calling him back and did not anticipate having any further communication with him.
The Second Call
[42] When Mr. Browne called Joshi back 10 minutes later, it was clear that he understood that Joshi’s initial call, when Joshi asked him “You around?”, was drug-related. He told Joshi:
Yeah, okay, so we can meet. I talked to Alex. We good. What do you need?
[43] Joshi testified that in his experience, the question, “What do you need?” is an inquiry as to what type of drug he was looking for. By stating, “We good. What do you need?” Mr. Browne was confirming that he was “good” or ready to do a drug deal with Joshi and was asking him what kind of drug he wanted. He was, in effect, starting to take an order for drugs from Joshi and was prepared to meet with him in order to make the sale: “Okay, so we can meet.” It is noteworthy that the suggestion that they meet came from Mr. Browne. Joshi made no mention of meeting with “Bro” during their initial conversation. Mr. Browne also confirmed in the second conversation that he knew Alex and had spoken to him.
[44] Joshi, in response to Mr. Browne’s question “What do you need?” replied, “Half b soft.” I find that at the time when Joshi made this offer to buy drugs, there existed the requisite reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was involved in drug trafficking. As stated earlier, the fact that Mr. Browne did not deny that he was Bro is of limited weight in the circumstances. However, Mr. Browne’s statement that he had talked to Alex clearly linked Mr. Browne to the tip and the drop name provided by the confidential informant. In addition, the portion of the tip that asserted illegal drug dealing by the male using the phone number in question was corroborated. When the two phone conversations are considered together, it is clear that Mr. Browne understood that when Joshi asked him, “You around?” in the first call, he was asking him if he was available or willing to sell him drugs. Mr. Browne did some due diligence by asking Joshi a couple of questions about Alex. In the end, Mr. Browne’s statements, “But I don’t know you” and “No, sorry, I’m not going to do this” indicate that he was not prepared to sell Joshi drugs at that time. However, 10 minutes later, when he called Joshi back, Mr. Browne indicated that he had changed his mind: “Yeah, okay, so we can meet. I talked to Alex. We good. What do you need?”
[45] Again, the two calls should be considered together. It is clear that in the first call, Mr. Browne understood the drug-trafficking slang expression, “Are you around?” that Joshi used in asking him as to whether he was available to sell him drugs. In the second call, Mr. Browne used drug slang himself to ask Joshi what kind of drugs he wanted, asking him, “What do you need?” Mr. Browne demonstrated an understanding of the drug slang used by Joshi and used drug slang himself before Joshi provided him the opportunity to commit the crime. This sequence of events distinguishes this case from Williams, where the accused responded positively to drug-trafficking slang but only after the offer to buy drugs had been made by the undercover officer. Unlike the present case, there was no corroboration in Williams of the informant’s tip with respect to its assertion of illegality.
[46] When Mr. Browne called Joshi back, he told him: “Yeah, okay, so we can meet. I talked to Alex. We good. What do you need?” Defence counsel submits that the idea of a meeting could have come from Alex and that the purpose of the proposed meeting is unknown. In my view, the suggestion that Mr. Browne intended to meet Joshi for some purpose other than doing a drug deal does not make any sense, given the fact that just after telling Joshi that “we can meet,” Mr. Browne asked him, “What do you need?”, which is drug slang for “What drugs do you want to buy?” These words crystallized the reasonable suspicion required before Joshi made the offer to buy drugs.
[47] In summary, the “constellation of objectively discernable facts,” in this case gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was a drug dealer before Joshi made the offer.
[48] Counsel for Mr. Browne submits that even if the objective standard of reasonable suspicion has been met, it has not been established that Joshi himself, when he made the offer to buy cocaine from Mr. Browne, had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was involved in drug trafficking. In support of her position, defence counsel referred to that portion of her cross-examination set out at paragraph 12 of these reasons.
[49] During that cross-examination, defence counsel asked Joshi whether Mr. Browne’s mention of “Alex” indicated to him that Mr. Browne was trafficking in drugs. Joshi stated “no”, that it just meant that Mr. Browne knew Alex. Based on this answer, defence counsel submits that in Joshi’s mind, the fact that Mr. Browne mentioned Alex was of little consequence – all that it meant was that Mr. Browne knew Alex, and there was nothing illegal about that. However, it is apparent from Joshi’s evidence as a whole that he was aware of the significance attached to the drop name Alex, in that it linked Mr. Browne to the informant’s tip.
[50] Later on, during this same portion of the cross-examination, Joshi was asked what made him decide to ask Mr. Browne for drugs. Joshi testified that there were a number of things said by Mr. Browne during the second phone call that he relied on in making that decision. These included Mr. Browne’s statement that he had talked to Alex and that “we’re good,” as well the question, “What do you need?” I also note that Mr. Browne told Joshi, “Okay, we can meet.”
[51] In considering whether Joshi subjectively held a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was involved in drug trafficking before he offered to buy cocaine from him, I take into account that Joshi is not a lawyer and did not specifically articulate that he had a reasonable suspicion. However, given Joshi’s testimony as to what Mr. Browne told him when he called him back, including the statement “we can meet,” and given Joshi’s understanding that Mr. Browne’s question, “What do you need?” was drug slang for “What kind of drugs do you want?” it is abundantly clear that Joshi had a reasonable suspicion that Mr. Browne was engaged in the trafficking of drugs.
[52] Both the subjective and objective standard of reasonable suspicion have been met. Mr. Browne has not established that he was entrapped when he arranged to sell drugs to Officer Joshi. The application is accordingly dismissed.
Garton J.
Released: March 3, 2021
COURT FILE NO.: 3878648
DATE: 20210303
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
– and –
YURI BROWNE
REASONS on entrapment application
Garton J.
Released: March 3, 2021