COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J(F) 19-1769

DATE: 2022 09 29

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Ms. S. Burdo and Mr. N. Cooper, for the Crown

• and -

FITZROY ALLEN, CHIJIOKE EMMANUEL NWANKWO & SHOMARI ESIRI WILLIAMS

Ms. P. Locke, for Mr. Allen

Mr. A. Absiye, for Mr. Nwankwo

Mr. H. Gonzalez, for Mr. Williams

HEARD: April 11, 12, 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 2022 (in person), April 13, 14, 19, 20, 2022

(by Zoom videoconference)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

STRIBOPOULOS J.

Introduction

[1] The trial of the three accused on various drug-related charges proceeded before me without a jury. With the consent of all three accused and the Crown, portions of the proceedings took place over Zoom videoconference. At the end of the trial, the court reserved its judgment.

[2] These are the court's Reasons for Judgment, which proceed in two main parts. The first part will detail the circumstances of the investigation that led to the three accused being arrested and charged. The second part will consider the charges and evidence relating to each accused and assess whether the Crown has proven the charges they each face beyond a reasonable doubt.

I. The Investigation and the Arrests

[3] On November 5, 2017, an officer with the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA), working at the International Mail Processing Centre in Mississauga, was x-raying packages as part of the CBSA’s efforts to prevent contraband from entering Canada.

[4] Late that afternoon, the officer x-rayed a box that appeared to have come from Suriname, given its labelling, tracking number, and accompanying customs declaration form. The x-ray revealed what appeared to be organic material in the box. As a result, the CBSA officer opened the box and examined its contents.

[5] It contained various items, including three small purses, a computer case, and spools of thread. On closer examination, the officer found what she suspected was cocaine within the lining of the purses and computer case and hidden within the spools of thread. The CBSA seized the box and its contents and contacted the RCMP.

[6] After the RCMP took custody of the box, they commenced an investigation. On closer examination, they discovered that the purses, computer case, and spools of thread concealed what turned out to be 3,498 grams of cocaine. According to the expert opinion evidence, admitted upon consent, the 3,498 grams of cocaine hidden inside the box seized by the CBSA was worth between $125,000 and $350,000, and exceeded what a typical cocaine user would possess. The RCMP seized most of the cocaine and then reassembled the box and its contents to appear as if no one had opened them.

[7] However, the RCMP left a single gram of cocaine in the box, concealed within the lining of one of the purses (“the control sample”). In addition, they equipped the box with a GPS tracking device and an intrusion alarm. They then set out to orchestrate a "controlled delivery" to allow for the release of the box so that they could track it and identify and arrest the person(s) responsible.

[8] The sender had addressed the box to "Chris Cohen 104-1920 ellesmere road Suite # 241 Scarborough ON M1H 3G1 Canada #416.4819154." That was the address of a UPS store, with Suite 241 being a postal box at the store. As a result, on November 14, 2017, RCMP officers placed that UPS store under surveillance.

[9] Just before 4:00 p.m. that day, the accused before the court, who the Crown alleges is Mr. Williams, attended the UPS store to claim the package. An undercover RCMP officer, posing as a clerk at the store, was present when the store owner released the box to him.

[10] The man who claimed the box then left the store, placed the box in the trunk of a silver Nissan, and drove away. RCMP officers in unmarked vehicles followed.

[11] When the Nissan made its way onto the 401 westbound, the surveillance officers lost sight of it. However, using information gleaned from the GPS tracking device secreted in the box, RCMP officers soon made their way to the parking lot of a Superstore just south of the 401 at Weston Road.

[12] The first police officer arrived at the Superstore parking lot at approximately 4:25 p.m. Once there, he observed the silver Nissan parked next to a grey Honda; no one was in the Nissan.

[13] The officer drove towards the vehicles in an unmarked police car, exited his vehicle and then approached on foot. As he did so, he saw two men get out of the Honda and move towards the back of the Nissan. The officer, wearing plain clothes, identified himself as a police officer and ordered the men to the ground. Although the driver of the Nissan complied with that direction, the second man quickly removed the box from the Nissan's trunk and placed it in the trunk of the Honda before re-entering that vehicle.

[14] The Honda then quickly sped away. While doing so, it struck a minivan driven by a second police officer who had just pulled up to the location. The collision rendered the police vehicle that was struck inoperative, but the driver of the Honda still managed to make good his escape.

[15] The driver of the Nissan, the man who picked up the package from the UPS store, was arrested in the Superstore parking lot. There is no issue that this is the same man before the court, who the Crown alleges is Shomari Williams. (This accused submits that the Crown has failed to prove his identity beyond a reasonable doubt.)

[16] RCMP officers then attempted to locate the Honda that fled the Superstore parking lot, using the GPS signal from the box. The signal showed the box travelling a somewhat circuitous route, including, at one point, northbound on Oakdale Road, before eventually stopping at Milady Road and Finch Avenue West in North York at 5:13 p.m.

[17] At 5:30 p.m., the first two RCMP officers attended at that location, a townhouse complex. Once there, they began searching the area for a dark-coloured Honda with front-end damage, the description of the suspect car, which struck the police vehicle when it fled the Superstore parking lot.

[18] These same two officers soon located a silver two-door Honda Accord parked in a visitor's parking spot at the townhouse complex. It was unoccupied. Initially, they were unsure if this was the vehicle they were looking for, given that it only had minor damage to its front fender.

[19] The officers first on the scene radioed their colleagues, describing the car and sharing its license plate number. Another officer, who was part of the surveillance team that evening, responded that he had seen that same car at a gas station on Oakdale Road while tracking the GPS signal after the Honda fled the Superstore. As a result, the two RCMP officers at the townhouse complex began watching the Honda from a distance and contemplating their next investigative step.

[20] While they did so, at approximately 5:35 p.m., they noticed that a Dodge pick-up truck had pulled up and stopped just beyond where the Honda Accord was parked. The rear of the pick-up was immediately in front of the Honda. After seeing the pick-up, one of the officers noticed a man approaching the back of the Honda and its trunk popping open. The other officer, observing the car through his rear-view mirror, also saw the man, but only after he was already by the Honda's trunk.

[21] The two police officers immediately moved toward the Honda Accord and the pick-up truck. They approached the man standing by the open trunk of the Honda Accord and arrested him. It was the accused, Mr. Nwankwo.

[22] Almost simultaneously, other RCMP officers arrived at the scene and placed the two occupants of the Dodge pick-up truck under arrest. The driver of the pick-up truck was Issufu Adams. Seated immediately behind him in the rear passenger seat on the driver's side was the accused, Mr. Allen.

[23] The police searched all three men and the two vehicles incidental to the arrests and seized various items as a result (discussed below). Additionally, they located the box, still containing the control sample of cocaine, in the trunk of the Honda Accord and seized it.

[24] Finally, late on November 16, 2017, RCMP officers, acting under the authority of a warrant authorizing them to search for and seize shipping documents relating to the box, searched a residence in Brampton. The Crown alleges it was Mr. Allen's residence. During that search, a police officer found a bag containing 303.5 grams of cocaine inside a basement drop ceiling accessible from the home's furnace room. Mr. Allen alone faces a charge concerning the cocaine found in that residence.

II. The Charges and Evidence Against Each of the Accused

[25] This part will, in turn, address the charges and evidence against each accused. As will become evident, the case against each of them depends, to varying degrees, on circumstantial evidence. As a result, it is sensible to begin this part by remembering the Supreme Court of Canada's guidance on how triers of fact are to approach the assessment of the evidence in such cases.

[26] In Villaroman, the Supreme Court explained that in a case in which proof of one or more elements of the offence depends exclusively or mainly on circumstantial evidence, for the trier of fact to return a guilty verdict, an inference of guilt must be the only reasonable inference the evidence permits: see R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 30.

[27] Accordingly, the trier of fact must consider other plausible theories and reasonable possibilities inconsistent with guilt that arise from the evidence or a lack of evidence: Villaroman, at paras. 30, 35-37. The Crown's case must negate such alternative interpretations of the circumstantial evidence for the accused to be found guilty: Villaroman, at para. 37. However, the Crown is not required to negate "every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused": R. v. Bagshaw, 1971 CanLII 13 (SCC), [1972] S.C.R. 2, at p. 8; see also Villaroman, at para. 37. Other plausible theories or reasonable possibilities "must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation": Villaroman, at para. 37.

[28] In Villaroman, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the distinction between what constitutes a "plausible theory" and what amounts to "speculation" is not always clear. Nevertheless, it explained that the "basic question" for the trier of fact "is whether the circumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty": Villaroman, at para. 38. Stated differently, it explained the dividing line between plausible theories and speculation by noting "that to justify a conviction, the circumstantial evidence, assessed in light of human experience, should be such that it excludes any other reasonable alternative": Villaroman, at para. 41.

[29] The Supreme Court cautioned that the trier of fact "should not act on alternative interpretations of the circumstances that it considers to be unreasonable and that alternative inferences must be reasonable, not just possible": Villaroman, at para. 42.

[30] Ultimately, the Supreme Court observed "that it is fundamentally for the trier of fact to draw the line in each case that separates reasonable doubt from speculation": Villaroman, at para. 71.

[31] When assessing circumstantial evidence and deciding whether it furnishes a reasonable inference of guilt, the trier of fact must guard against considering individual items of evidence separately and in isolation. Instead, such evidence must be viewed as a whole and weighed cumulatively to decide whether it only supports a reasonable inference of guilt and excludes other alternative and plausible explanations: see R v. Hudson, 2021 ONCA 772, 158 O.R. (3d) 589, at para. 70; R. v. Gibson, 2021 ONCA 530, 157 O.R. (3d) 597, at paras. 78-79.

[32] With these principles firmly in mind, these reasons turn to consider the Crown's case against the three accused concerning the charges each of them face.

A. Has the Crown Proven the Importation of Cocaine into Canada Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

[33] The indictment charges Mr. Williams with importing cocaine, and charges him and Mr. Allen jointly with conspiring with a person or persons unknown to import cocaine into Canada. They each submit that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the cocaine secreted within the box arrived in Canada from abroad. They contend that without proof of that, there can be no importation and no conspiracy to import involving the cocaine hidden within the box.

[34] There was no direct evidence at trial that the box containing the cocaine arrived in Canada from abroad. The CBSA officer who discovered the cocaine in the box on November 5, 2017, first dealt with it after someone else placed it on the x-ray belt leading into the x-ray machine she was operating. However, that officer could not recall who put it on the x-ray belt, and whoever placed it there did not testify concerning where they located the box and where they first encountered it. Nor did that CBSA officer give direct evidence that packages sent through the domestic mail do not also get sorted at that same facility.

[35] The labelling on the box, including details concerning the sender's purported address, the country code on the tracking number ("SR"), and the customs declaration form, which had an official-looking stamp on it that read, in part, "Suriname," all suggest it arrived in Canada from that South American country. However, using that collection of documentary evidence for the truth of the information it asserts would run afoul of the hearsay rule: see R. v. Santinelli, [2009] O.J. No. 2059 (S.C.), at paras. 19-20. Notably, the Crown did not bring an application to have that information admitted for its truth under an exception to the hearsay rule, for example, the business records or principled exceptions.

[36] Nevertheless, irrespective of the truth of the information conveyed by the label, the tracking number, and the customs declaration form, the other circumstantial evidence, when considered cumulatively, satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that the cocaine the CBSA officer found in the box was imported into Canada. I have come to that conclusion for a few reasons.

[37] First, there was the testimony of the CBSA officer who discovered the cocaine in the box. That officer testified that she was working at the International Mail Centre when she encountered the box on November 5, 2017. She was part of the Enforcement Unit that day, x-raying packages to interdict goods that are not permitted to enter Canada. She specifically testified that the parcels at that facility "are all from foreign countries" and arrive by "international mail." Notably, the CBSA officer neither testified nor implied that packages travelling through the domestic mail system pass through the International Mail Centre.

[38] Second, there is the fact that everything affixed to the box, the sender's address, the tracking number, and the customs declaration form, made it appear that whoever sent the package did so from overseas. Putting to one side the truth of the information asserted by that documentary evidence, there remains the indisputable fact that whoever sent the box labelled it that way.

[39] It is inconceivable that anyone sending a package within Canada that contained cocaine would label it to appear as if it was coming from abroad. After all, anyone involved in trafficking cocaine would undoubtedly know that international mail is subject to inspection, whereas domestic mail is not. Anyone transporting drugs through the mail within Canada would have no possible reason to mislabel a package to make it appear as though it was coming from outside the country and thereby invite the possibility of added scrutiny. As a result, the fact that the sender labelled the box to appear as if it was coming from overseas supports a reasonable inference that it was.

[40] Finally, there is the sophistication of the efforts made to conceal the cocaine within the purses, the computer case, and spools of thread. As the expert evidence, admitted with the consent of all the parties, establishes, those responsible for importing drugs "will often use similar means to conceal their shipments in an attempt to evade law enforcement detection." Beyond the expert evidence, common sense suggests whoever sent the package anticipated its contents would likely be subject to inspection. Otherwise, why go to such extraordinary efforts to conceal the cocaine within innocuous items? That is far more consistent with the package being sent across an international border where such inspections are routine and expected. Moreover, it defies logical scrutiny that someone sending drugs domestically by mail would undertake such extraordinary efforts to conceal the illicit nature of what they were mailing, given that mail sent within Canada is not subject to routine inspection. In short, the elaborate efforts taken to conceal the cocaine are consistent with someone sending the box into Canada from abroad.

[41] All the evidence, considered logically and cumulatively, supports only one reasonable inference – that the box containing the cocaine came into Canada from another country sometime around November 5, 2017. Of that, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt.

C. Has the Crown Proven the Charges Against Mr. Williams Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

[42] As noted, the indictment charges Shomari Williams alone with importing cocaine (count 1). Additionally, he faces charges, jointly with Mr. Allen, of conspiring with a person or persons unknown to import cocaine (count 2), and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 3). And finally, along with Mr. Allen and Mr. Nwankwo, a charge of conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 4).

A Finding Concerning Identity

[43] The issue of the identity of the accused that the Crown alleges is "Shomari Williams" has considerable significance in this case. Not only because the Crown must prove the person named in the indictment is the accused before the court, but also because the Crown contends that the accused's use of a false name is probative of his guilt on the charges he faces. As a result, it is necessary to decide that issue before considering the evidence that the Crown contends proves the charges against the accused it alleges is Mr. Williams.

[44] There is no issue that the person before the court, who the Crown alleges is Shomari Williams, was the same person who picked up the box from the UPS store on November 14, 2017, and the same person police arrested a short time later at the Superstore parking lot. However, this accused's true identity was a live issue at trial.

[45] During the arraignment, at the beginning of the trial, his counsel acknowledged that the accused before the court was "Shomari Esiri Williams." However, the Crown cannot prove identity by relying on counsel's identification of their client at arraignment. Otherwise, arraignment, which is supposed to mark the start of a fair and public trial, would become a means for the accused's compelled self-incrimination: see R. v. Levene, [2008] O.J. No. 5964 (S.C.), at para. 10; R. v. Zhang, 2015 ONSC 4128, at paras. 81-82. Accordingly, the Crown cannot rely on his lawyer's identification of Mr. Williams as part of the arraignment process as furnishing proof of his identity.

[46] As a result, I turn to consider the evidence at trial concerning the identity of the person the Crown alleges is "Shomari Williams."

[47] Whoever sent the box addressed it: "Chris Cohen 104-1920 ellesmere road Suite # 241 Scarborough ON M1H 3G1 Canada #416.4819154." However, as noted, that was the address for a postal box at the UPS store. On September 13, 2017, the accused before the court, who the Crown says is Mr. Williams, rented that postal box. At the time, he used identification to do so – an Ontario driver's license bearing his photograph and the name "Aaron Thomas," with a date of birth of July 7, 1983.

[48] When he attended the UPS store at 3:44 p.m. on November 14, 2017, to claim the package, an undercover RCMP officer posing as a UPS employee saw and heard his interaction with the UPS store owner who served him. The undercover officer described that man, later identified him from a photograph, and testified he was the same person before the court who the Crown alleges is Mr. Williams.

[49] The undercover officer saw the man produce an Ontario driver's license, and the store owner checked it against some papers he had in a binder. Then, the store owner and the man began arguing when the owner initially refused to release the package because the man's name was different than that of the recipient, "Chris Cohen." The man said the parcel was for his cousin and claimed he was there to pick it up because his cousin lived in Windsor. He also said that because he "owned" the postal box, he should be able to claim anything sent to it. Given that the "owner" of the box was "Aaron Thomas," one can infer that the man presented the driver's license in that name when claiming the package.

[50] Eventually, the store owner called UPS to obtain approval to release the package, and the man briefly took the phone to speak to them. While that was happening, the undercover RCMP officer directed the store owner to provide the package to the man. When the man got off the phone with UPS, the store owner released the box to him. The man responded by thanking the store owner and leaving the UPS store with the package.

[51] As noted, undercover RCMP officers had the store under surveillance. Once outside the store, the man walked to a silver Nissan and placed the box in its trunk. Then, he got into the driver's seat; the police did not observe anyone else in the car. He sat in the vehicle for a minute or two before driving off at approximately 3:57 p.m. According to the police officers conducting surveillance, nothing about the man's behaviour or driving seemed unusual or at all conspicuous.

[52] As mentioned, police in unmarked vehicles followed the Nissan but lost sight of it in traffic while travelling in the westbound lanes of Highway 401. However, using information from the GPS tracker secreted in the package, they soon made their way to the Superstore on Weston Road just south of the 401.

[53] The first officer arrived at that location at 4:25 p.m. He saw the Nissan parked next to a grey Honda in an isolated portion of the parking lot. The officer stopped his car, got out, and approached the vehicles. As he did so, he did not see anyone inside the Nissan. However, two men exited the Honda and moved towards the trunk of the Nissan. The officer yelled, "police, get on the ground."

[54] As noted earlier, one of the men complied and got on the ground. In contrast, the other quickly moved the box from the Nissan's trunk into the trunk of the Honda. That man re-entered the Honda and sped off, striking a second unmarked police vehicle just as it pulled up to the location.

[55] One of the officers soon took control of the man who had complied with the direction to get on the ground and placed him under arrest. As noted, there is no issue that this is the person before the court who the Crown alleges is Mr. Williams.

[56] The arresting officer testified that he identified this man as "Shomari Williams." However, when testifying at trial four-and-a-half years after the arrest, the officer could not recall how he identified the man. For example, he could not remember whether the man said that was his name or if he determined that was his name from the man's identification.

[57] A police officer, who arrived at the location to assist the arresting officer, and who transported the accused (who he understood to be Shomari Williams) back to the police division, testified to receiving various items from the arresting officer when he took custody of the man, including a wallet.

[58] In the wallet, the police found an Ontario driver's license in the name of "Aaron Thomas," with a birthdate of July 7, 1983, which they seized. It became an exhibit at trial. That was the same driver's license used to rent the UPS postal box; it was copied and attached to the rental contract, which became an exhibit at trial. The police photocopied everything else they found in the wallet before returning it to the accused. Those photocopies also became exhibits at the trial.

[59] The wallet had various other items in it. That included an Ontario driver's license in the name of "Shomari Esiri Washington Williams," with a date of birth of December 16, 1986, and an Ontario health card for "Shomari Williams," with that same birthdate. Moreover, the photographs on the "Aaron Thomas" license, the "Shomari Williams" license and health card all appear to be of the same person; the accused before the court, who the Crown alleges is Shomari Williams.

[60] The name "Shomari Williams" was also on other items found in the wallet. For example, it was on a BMO Mastercard and two business cards. Additionally, there were RBC Business Client cards for two companies and a Tangerine banking client card (which did not have any name printed on it). There were signatures on the backs of the RBC Business Client cards and the Tangerine banking client card. All three signatures look the same and appear consistent with someone signing the name "Shomari Williams" rather than "Aaron Thomas." Finally, a CellOne card in the wallet had space on the back for a customer to write their name, and "Shomari" was hand printed in the space available.

[61] Critically, there was only one item in the wallet with the name "Aaron Thomas" on it, the Ontario driver's license used to rent the postal box and claim the package.

[62] In theory, there is the possibility that Shomari Williams, at some point, legally changed his name to Aaron Thomas. However, that possibility does not bear logical scrutiny because the date of birth for "Shomari Williams" on both the license and health card differs from that on the "Aaron Thomas" license.

[63] In my view, the wallet's contents support only one reasonable inference; that the accused before the court is Shomari Williams. It follows that the driver's license in the name of "Aaron Thomas" is not a genuine piece of identification. In colloquial terms, the "Aaron Thomas" driver's license that Mr. Williams used to rent the UPS mailbox and pick up the package was a fake ID.

[64] Given these findings, I turn next to consider the Crown's case against Mr. Williams on the four charges he faces.

The Evidence against Mr. Williams

[65] The Crown's case against Mr. Williams concerning all four charges that he faces can be briefly summarized as follows:

• Mr. Williams rented the UPS postal box on September 13, 2017, using a false name and identification.

• Whoever sent the box containing cocaine from abroad addressed it to “Chris Cohen” at the address for the UPS postal box rented less than two months earlier by Mr. Williams.

• The cocaine hidden in the box was worth between $125,000 and $350,000 and exceeded what a typical cocaine user would possess.

• On November 14, 2017, Mr. Williams attended the UPS store to claim the package. He presented the fake license in the name of "Aaron Thomas" to collect the parcel and became argumentative when the store owner initially refused to release the package to him. While dealing with the store owner, Mr. Williams said he was there to pick up the box for his cousin in Windsor.

• After he left the UPS store, Mr. Williams placed the box in the trunk of a car before driving off. Nothing about his behaviour or driving was unusual or conspicuous.

• Within less than a half-hour of picking up the package, Mr. Williams met the driver of the Honda in a remote section of the Superstore parking lot.

• When the police approached to arrest the men, unlike the driver of the Honda, Mr. Williams complied with the officer’s command and got down on the ground.

[66] With the evidence against Mr. Williams summarized, I turn to consider whether it proves the offences charged against him beyond a reasonable doubt.

Analysis of the Evidence

[67] The circumstantial evidence reasonably supports various inferences that, when taken together, establish a compelling case that Mr. Williams is guilty of the crimes for which he faces charges.

[68] First, Mr. Williams rented the postal box where the package containing the cocaine was sent two months before it arrived in Canada, using a false name and identification. That evidence furnishes a reasonable inference that he knew about the shipment beforehand and that it would contain something illegal. Otherwise, why rent the postal box under a false name and with false identification? That, along with Mr. Williams picking up the package once it arrived, all supports a somewhat irresistible inference that he played an essential role in facilitating the importation of the box that concealed the cocaine.

[69] Second, the evidence reasonably supports an inference that Mr. Williams was not acting alone in this criminal enterprise. Based on the evidence, there was undoubtedly an agreement involving him and others to import the package. To begin with, someone overseas undertook sophisticated measures to conceal the cocaine within items inside the box before mailing it to Canada. Although there is no evidence that Mr. Williams had any direct contact with the shipper, there is evidence that others in Canada did. Messages and photos found on phones associated with other participants in the scheme, detailed more fully below, demonstrate that whoever sent the box was communicating with persons in Canada about the shipment. That included information about the recipient's name ("Chris Cohen") and photographs showing the purses, computer case and spools of thread (the only items in the box which concealed cocaine) before the box was sealed and mailed to Canada. All that evidence furnishes a reasonable inference that there was indeed a conspiracy between two or more persons to import cocaine into Canada.

[70] Third, there can be no question that once he picked up the package, Mr. Williams had control over it and transported it to a meeting with the man driving the Honda at the Superstore parking lot, who then took the box and fled with it when the police arrived. That this meeting occurred less than thirty minutes after Mr. Williams retrieved the package from the UPS store suggests much more than a chance encounter. It was a meeting he must have arranged either with the driver of the Honda or someone else involved in the scheme to hand off the package. It follows that Mr. Williams was party to an agreement to transport the box containing the cocaine once it arrived in Canada.

[71] In short, the circumstantial evidence, considered logically and cumulatively, powerfully supports findings that would satisfy most of the essential elements of the four offences charged against Mr. Williams and excludes other reasonable alternative inferences concerning those elements. But, of course, the Crown must prove all the essential elements of an offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.

[72] The offences of importing cocaine and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking share a common element; for each, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams either knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that the box contained cocaine or a controlled substance of some kind: see R. v. Rai, 2011 BCCA 341, 277 C.C.C. (3d) 389, at paras. 1, 17-20; R. v. Sandhu (1989), 1989 CanLII 7102 (ON CA), 50 C.C.C. (3d) 492 (Ont. C.A.), at pp. 498-499; R. v. Duffy (1973), 1973 CanLII 1479 (ON CA), 11 C.C.C. (2d) 519 (Ont. C.A.), at p. 520; R. v. Blondin (1970), 1970 CanLII 1006 (BC CA), 2 C.C.C. (2d) 118 (B.C. C.A.), at pp. 131-132, affirmed [1971] S.C.R. v.

[73] Wilful blindness can substitute for actual knowledge whenever knowledge is a component of the mens rea: see R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 411, at para. 21. It is the mindset of an accused who subjectively suspects the existence of the prohibited consequences or circumstances, for example, in this case, suspecting that the box contains cocaine or some other controlled substance, but who nevertheless decides not to inquire because they prefer not to know the truth: see Sansregret v. The Queen, 1985 CanLII 79 (SCC), [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570, at pp. 584-586; Briscoe, at paras. 21-24; R. v. Pilgrim, 2017 ONCA 309, 347 C.C.C. (3d) 141, at para. 66; R. v. Farmer, 2014 ONCA 823, 318 C.C.C. (3d) 322, at para. 26.

[74] Given the exacting requirements for proof of wilful blindness, a subjective form of mens rea, Professor Glanville Williams described it as "equivalent to knowledge" and only available in situations when "it can almost be said that the defendant actually knew" – a characterization that the Supreme Court of Canada has unreservedly and repeatedly adopted: see Sansregret, at para. 22; Briscoe, at para. 23; R. v. Morrison, 2019 SCC 15, [2019] 2 S.C.R. 3, at para. 98.

[75] Additionally, the conspiracy charges involving importation and possession for the purpose of trafficking each particularize "cocaine" as the subject matter of the alleged unlawful agreements. As a result, to secure convictions for those charges, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the conspiracies as particularized: see R. v. Saunders, 1990 CanLII 1131 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1020, at para. 5. That means the Crown must prove Mr. Williams conspired to import cocaine and possess it for the purpose of trafficking. Accordingly, his agreement to participate in a scheme to import and transport something illegal other than cocaine would not be enough to find him guilty of the two conspiracy charges.

[76] Having considered all the evidence carefully, I am sure Mr. Williams knew he was involved in importing and transporting something illegal and agreed with at least one other person to participate in an undertaking of that nature. However, the evidence falls short of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he either knew or was wilfully blind to the fact that the package contained cocaine or a controlled substance rather than some other form of contraband. For essentially the same reasons, I am also less than sure that Mr. Williams agreed with another person to import cocaine or to possess it for the purpose of trafficking. I will briefly explain why I have a reasonable doubt concerning these essential elements of the offences charged against Mr. Williams.

[77] To be sure, the evidence is reasonably capable of supporting an inference that Mr. Williams did know that the package contained cocaine or a controlled substance of some kind. As the Court of Appeal for Ontario has recognized, as a matter of common sense, someone entrusted to serve as a courier of a valuable quantity of illegal drugs is unlikely to be left unaware of what they are carrying: R. v. N'Kansah, 2019 ONCA 290, at para. 14; R. v. Pannu, 2015 ONCA 677, at para. 157, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 498; R. v. Bryan, 2013 ONCA 97, at para. 11. The evidence establishes that Mr. Williams's role in the scheme was at least that of a courier.

[78] The cocaine hidden inside the box was worth between $125,000 and $350,000. That may have given the other participants in the scheme good reason to tell Mr. Williams its true nature from the outset. First, to keep him in the loop from the very beginning so that he would appreciate the importance of securing fake identification and renting the postal box using it. Second, to ensure that he promptly retrieved the package once it was delivered. Third, to also guarantee that he would maintain control over the box after picking it up and transport it directly and without delay to the driver of the Honda at the Superstore's parking lot.

[79] All that said, the circumstances here are somewhat different than the typical case involving a drug courier. Usually, a drug courier's travels begin abroad in a source country. Once there, before their return, their overseer entrusts them with luggage or some other item that conceals a valuable quantity of drugs. Eventually, the courier makes their way to a foreign airport and boards a flight to Canada. In such circumstances, should a courier even momentarily leave their luggage or whatever item conceals the drugs unattended in a busy airport, the result could be rather costly for those with a stake in the illegal enterprise. Therefore, common sense suggests that telling a courier the truth will help ensure their vigilance throughout their travels and better safeguard a valuable investment.

[80] The circumstances here are very different. Mr. Williams only had control of the box containing the cocaine for a very short period – less than a half hour, which is the time it took for him to drive from the UPS store to the Superstore parking lot and meet the driver of the Honda who took the box from him. In these circumstances, would the other participants in the scheme believe Mr. Williams needed to be fully in the know?

[81] Additionally, given that Mr. Williams was the person who rented the postal box and picked up the package, he would seem to have been the participant at the lowest echelon of the scheme. After all, in his role, he was the most vulnerable to being arrested if the authorities discovered the box's actual contents. As a result, whoever else was involved would arguably have good reason to tell Mr. Williams as little as possible. Keeping him in the dark would make anyone else involved far less vulnerable should the police arrest Mr. Williams when he attended the UPS store to pick up the package.

[82] If they did not tell him, would Mr. Williams have necessarily assumed the box contained drugs? And, if that thought did cross his mind, did he choose not to ask because he did not want to know the truth? Or did some other possibility cross his mind – for example, that the box contained firearms? After all, experience demonstrates that many illegal handguns and prohibited firearm accessories make their way into Canada through unlawful importation. Given this, that alternative possibility hardly seems speculative or implausible. Or maybe Mr. Williams is not a very sophisticated or curious person. If so, when potentially told, "It's none of your business; your job is to rent the postal box, retrieve the package and deliver it, and for that, I'll pay you X," maybe he did not give the box's possible contents any thought at all?

[83] A reasonable person in the same circumstances would undoubtedly have asked what was in the box. However, wilful blindness concerning the mens rea for a crime requiring proof of knowledge is very different than criminal negligence. It entails more than a failure to inquire when a reasonable person in the same circumstances would: Briscoe, at para. 24. As explained, wilful blindness is a subjective standard. It involves an accused who chooses to "shut his eyes because he knew or strongly suspected that looking would fix him with knowledge" of the prohibited consequences or circumstances: R. v. Jorgensen, 1995 CanLII 85 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 55, at para. 104 (underlining added).

[84] The circumstantial evidence against Mr. Williams can reasonably support several alternative inferences concerning his potential state of mind. To be sure, none of these are "innocent" by any measure. Nevertheless, at least some are inconsistent with what is required to find Mr. Williams guilty of the specific offences charged in the indictment. For example, if Mr. Williams suspected that the box contained contraband other than drugs, for example, firearms or associated accessories, he would lack the mens rea required to be guilty of importing a controlled substance or possessing a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking. Similarly, if he agreed to help import and transport firearms or "something illegal," although his actions would unquestionably be morally reprehensible, that would fall short of justifying guilty verdicts on the conspiracy charges he faces.

[85] Although I think it rather probable that Mr. Williams was a fully informed participant in the scheme from before the box containing the cocaine arrived in Canada, without additional evidence, I find myself less than sure that he was.

[86] Ultimately, I have a reasonable doubt that Mr. Williams either knew the box contained cocaine or some other controlled substance or that he was wilfully blind to that fact. Therefore, Mr. Williams must be found not guilty of importing cocaine (count 1) and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 3).

[87] Similarly, although it seems likely that Mr. Williams was a member of a conspiracy to import cocaine (count 2) and to possess it for the purpose of trafficking (count 4), I cannot be sure that he was. As a result, Mr. Williams must also be found not guilty of each of the conspiracy charges.

D. Has the Crown Proven the Charge Against Mr. Nwankwo Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

[88] The indictment charges Mr. Nwankwo jointly with Mr. Allen and Mr. Williams with a single count that alleges he did conspire and agree with a person or persons unknown to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking between November 5, 2017, and November 14, 2017.

The Evidence against Mr. Nwankwo

[89] Mr. Nwankwo first came to the attention of police at 5:36 p.m. on November 14, 2017, at the townhouse complex, when the two RCMP officers that first arrived at that location noticed him after seeing the Dodge pick-up truck stop near the Honda Accord. There were, not surprisingly, some very minor differences in the evidence these two officers gave.

[90] The officer in the driver's seat of the police vehicle, who made his initial observations through his rear-view mirror, described only first seeing a person by the Honda's open trunk. Initially, he could not tell if it was a woman or a man. After the officers exited their vehicle and approached the Honda, that officer testified to seeing Mr. Nwankwo “rummaging” around in its trunk. As they got closer to Mr. Nwankwo, he testified that he could not see his hands from his vantage point as he moved from the passenger side of the Honda towards the back of the car. He testified that while they approached, Mr. Nwankwo was leaning over and reaching into the trunk.

[91] The second officer, initially seated in the front passenger seat of the unmarked police vehicle, testified to first noticing Mr. Nwankwo as he moved from the direction of the pick-up truck towards the back of the Honda just as the lid to its trunk was popping open. He approached the back of the Honda on the driver's side. He testified that as he came closer to the vehicle, with the open trunk lid partially obstructing his view, he saw Mr. Nwankwo's outstretched arms reaching into the trunk. He maintained that he could see part of the box coming up from the angle of his approach. As a result, he surmised that Mr. Nwankwo was in the process of lifting the box out of the trunk.

[92] With their firearms drawn, the officers yelled out to Mr. Nwankwo, telling him he was under arrest and ordering him to the ground. With that, Mr. Nwankwo momentarily raised his head above the trunk's open lid before immediately complying. At that point, one of the officers placed Mr. Nwankwo under arrest.

[93] During a search incidental to Mr. Nwankwo's arrest, in the front left pocket of his jeans, the arresting officer located a TD banking envelope containing $1,350 CDN and a Samsung Galaxy S7 ("S7") phone. Additionally, the officer found a Samsung Galaxy S5 ("S5") phone in the front right pocket of his jeans.

[94] Police forensically examined both Samsung phones. On the S5 phone, the police found various items of note that the Crown emphasized as part of its case, including:

• On October 3, 2017, at 8:46 p.m., someone sent an SMS to that phone which read: "Hey Chijioke, I send you a message on WhatsApp did you receive it?" At 8:50 p.m., whoever was using the S5 responded, "What number, 437 number?"

• On October 12, 2017, at 9:52 p.m., during an exchange over WhatsApp, someone using the screen name "Chinwe" messaged the S5 and asked, "Chijioke do you know french?" At 9:53 p.m., the user of the S5 replied, "No."

• On October 15, 2017, at 8:16 p.m., Chinwe again messaged the S5, writing, "Hi Chijioke, If you are home watch CNN at 9, Anthony Bourdain parts unknown going to Nigeria." To which the user of the S5 responded, seven minutes later, "I've been waiting for the episode. I guess I'll watch the repeat. I'm not home. Thanks anyways."

• In the phone's photo gallery, there was a photo showing the details of a TD bank account for "Chijioke E. Nwankwo."

• On November 10, 2017, beginning at 4:11 p.m., someone used the S5 to conduct various Google searches, including for: "Fitzroy Allen," "19 doveheaven Brampton," "104 1920 ellesmere road suite 241 scarborough," "1920 ellesmere road unit 104." Additionally, the phone accessed Google Maps to look at files associated with the Ellesmere address.

• On November 14, 2017, at 3:50 p.m., the S5 received three photographs over WhatsApp from the "Solomon" contact on that phone from an account associated with the phone number "(597) 716-6951." (The sender information on the box that contained the cocaine also included a phone number that began with a "597" area code.) One photo is of what appears to be spools of thread, another three small purses and a computer case, and the last photo is of a cardboard box taped shut. The purses, computer case, and spools of thread appear identical to the items found in the box seized by the CBSA on November 5, 2017 that concealed the cocaine. Additionally, the box in the photo appears to be the same as the one seized by the CBSA. At 3:56 p.m., whoever was using the S5 responded to the person who sent the photographs by sending a WhatsApp message that read: "cool."

Mr. Nwankwo’s Testimony

[95] Mr. Nwankwo's testified in his defence. According to his evidence, he knew nothing about any shipment to Canada, the box in the Honda's trunk, or that there were drugs in it. Furthermore, Mr. Nwankwo denied knowing anyone named "Solomon" or having any knowledge of anything on his S5 phone that suggested a connection with that person and the box containing the items concealing cocaine. Finally, he offered an innocent explanation for how incriminating evidence could have found its way onto his S5 phone and why he reached into the Honda's open trunk, where police found the box concealing the cocaine, just moments before his arrest.

[96] Mr. Nwankwo testified that he had known Mr. Adams for over two decades and that they were friends. By November 2017, for about two years, he had been renting a room in Mr. Adams's residence at the same townhouse complex where the police arrested him. Also living there were Mr. Adams's wife, two children and in-laws. Mr. Nwankwo rented a bedroom on the top floor of the residence and shared the home's common spaces with Mr. Adams and his family.

[97] Mr. Nwankwo testified concerning the S5 and S7 phones police found in his jean pockets after arresting him. He acknowledged owning both devices. However, he described primarily using the S5 in the Bahamas, where he operates a business in partnership with his cousin, selling imported used cars, car parts and tires. In contrast, Mr. Nwankwo testified that his S7 phone had a SIM card connected to a Canadian wireless carrier and was the device he primarily used in Canada.

[98] Mr. Nwankwo testified that he previously had one phone and would insert a local SIM card into it whenever visiting the Bahamas. He testified that he travels to the Bahamas every couple of months for a week at a time to attend to his business. However, he became tired of losing SIM cards and decided that having two different phones was a better solution.

[99] Nevertheless, Mr. Nwankwo explained that because he has some of his contacts only on the S5, he would use it periodically to send and receive messages over WhatsApp and make calls over the Internet while in Canada. But he could only do so by connecting it to the Internet where a Wi-Fi network was available, given that it did not have a Canadian SIM card.

[100] According to Mr. Nwankwo, while he lived with him, Mr. Adams was having a longstanding affair with Mr. Allen's sister, Marcia. He initially testified that he permitted Mr. Adams to use the S5 to "talk to his girlfriend." He explained allowing this because Mr. Adams's wife had access to Mr. Adams's cellphone and that by letting him use the S5, he enabled Mr. Adams to keep his extra-marital affair hidden from his wife. In contrast, Mr. Adams's wife would not have access to the S5 because it was Mr. Nwankwo's device, and only he and Mr. Adams had the password for it. Mr. Nwankwo explained that he agreed to share the S5 with Mr. Adams "to be a good friend."

[101] According to Mr. Nwankwo, Mr. Adams routinely used his S5 phone. He effectively described them sharing that phone between them, with Mr. Adams sometimes having it for a day at a time. Mr. Adams even kept contacts on the S5, people with whom Mr. Nwankwo was not familiar. If Mr. Nwankwo saw a call coming in on the S5 and did not recognize the number, he would let it go to voicemail because he assumed it was for Mr. Adams. Mr. Nwankwo testified that he would then check the voicemail and tell Mr. Adams about the message if the call was for him. Further, Mr. Nwankwo testified that Mr. Adams would routinely receive WhatsApp messages on the S5. However, Mr. Nwankwo maintained he did not read any of these.

[102] According to Mr. Nwankwo, he and Mr. Adams regularly passed the S5 back and forth between them while they were both at home. In addition, he testified that Mr. Adams would use the S5 while they were together, even when Mr. Adams's wife was home. However, Mr. Nwankwo insisted that Mr. Adams's wife never questioned why Mr. Adams was routinely using Mr. Nwankwo's S5 phone. In contrast, Mr. Nwankwo testified that Mr. Adams would never use his S7 phone because he always had it with him.

[103] During his testimony, Mr. Nwankwo acknowledged that his S5 phone contained a contact for someone named "Solomon." However, he maintained that he did not know anyone by that name and had no relationship with him.

[104] Concerning the events of November 14, 2017, Mr. Nwankwo testified that he had plans that day to prepare for an upcoming trip to Nigeria by going shopping. He planned to do so with a friend that morning. At the time, he had sold his car; therefore, he needed to rely on friends to drive him around. He also had plans to go shopping with Mr. Adams at Vaughan Mills Mall later in the day.

[105] Mr. Nwankwo testified that his friend picked him up that morning to go shopping at around 9:00 a.m. He left the S5 at home because he could not use it when he was out and about, given that it did not have a Canadian SIM card. Mr. Nwankwo testified that when he left the house on the morning of November 14, 2017, he had not seen the S5 since the preceding day.

[106] Mr. Nwankwo gave detailed evidence concerning where he and his friend went that day, including stopping at the TD bank and withdrawing $5,000 in cash to pay for the items he would purchase while shopping. During his evidence, Mr. Nwankwo provided a detailed account of the various stores he attended that day, the things he bought, and the money he spent. He testified that his friend dropped him back off at the residence sometime after 2:00 p.m.

[107] When his friend dropped him off, Mr. Adams happened to be outside, so Mr. Nwankwo put the items he purchased into the pick-up truck, and they headed off to Vaughan Mills. (After the arrests, police found shopping bags containing what appeared to be brand new items inside the pick-up truck.)

[108] While at Vaughan Mills, Mr. Nwankwo testified that he did not have the S5 with him, given that it was useless when he was not home. He testified that he did not know whether Mr. Adams had the S5 with him when they went shopping that afternoon. Mr. Nwankwo also described the stores he visited and the items he purchased during the shopping trip to Vaughan Mills.

[109] Mr. Nwankwo testified that after shopping, he and Mr. Adams returned to the residence between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. According to Mr. Nwankwo, when they got home, he took most of his purchases into the house and up to his room. However, he left some of the items in the pick-up truck.

[110] Once they were home, Mr. Nwankwo testified he was up and down between his room and the living room area. He testified that Mr. Adams was in the living room during that period, and that Mr. Adams's wife and children were also home. Mr. Nwankwo testified that he saw Mr. Adams using the S5 phone in the living room during that timeframe. (I note, parenthetically, that was around when "Solomon" sent the photographs of the box and the items in it concealing the cocaine over WhatsApp to the S5.)

[111] Between 15 and 30 minutes after they arrived home, Mr. Nwankwo described hearing a knock at the door. He testified that Mr. Adams answered the door and went outside for about five minutes before coming back in and calling to him from the front door to come out, saying, "we have to go." Mr. Nwankwo asked where they were going, and Mr. Adams responded, "M's brother." He understood this meant Marcia's brother, although he did not know which one. According to Mr. Nwankwo, they would refer to Marcia as "M" at home so that Mr. Adams's wife would not know to whom they were referring.

[112] Mr. Nwankwo testified that he and Mr. Adams were planning on going out that night, so he did not think anything of Mr. Adams summoning him outside and assumed they were heading out for the evening. However, he testified that before doing so, he grabbed the S5 phone, which Mr. Adams had left on the couch. Mr. Nwankwo explained taking the S5 phone with him, at that point, because of where Mr. Adams had left it and not wanting it ringing while they were out and Mr. Adams's wife answering it.

[113] Once outside, Mr. Nwankwo testified that he saw Mr. Allen, who he recognized from having seen him once before at Marcia's father's funeral. As they walked towards the pick-up, Mr. Nwankwo trailed behind Mr. Adams and Mr. Allen. The two men were engrossed in a conversation that Mr. Nwankwo could not entirely overhear. They all walked towards the pick-up truck and got into it. Mr. Nwankwo testified that he got into the front passenger seat because Mr. Adams and Mr. Allen were still talking on the driver's side when they got to the pick-up.

[114] Mr. Adams then drove the truck for about ten seconds to the visitor parking area at the townhouse complex. Once there, he stopped in front of the Honda Accord. During that short drive, Mr. Nwankwo testified that Mr. Adams and Mr. Allen were still in the middle of an intense conversation. From what he overheard, he thought the discussion concerned Marcia being upset with Mr. Adams and throwing out his belongings.

[115] When they stopped in front of the Honda, Mr. Nwankwo testified that Mr. Adams said to him, "could you grab my stuff from the trunk of this car?" Not wanting to interrupt him and Mr. Allen as they spoke, Mr. Nwankwo complied, thinking nothing of the request. He got out of the pick-up, leaving his door open, and walked towards the Honda's trunk. As he did so, the trunk popped open. In it, Mr. Nwankwo testified that he saw various items, including a box and some bags behind it. Mr. Nwankwo testified he was unsure what Mr. Adams wanted him to retrieve and was just about to shout out to him to ask when he heard the police yelling that he was under arrest.

[116] Mr. Nwankwo testified that the $1,350 CDN in cash that police found in the TD bank envelope in his pocket when they searched him following his arrest was the money left over from shopping that day. Mr. Nwankwo maintained that he withdrew cash to do his shopping because he could get better deals by paying in cash at some of the stores where he and his friend went that morning. Further, he testified that doing so helped him guard against overspending.

Analysis of the Evidence

[117] Mr. Nwankwo's testimony provides a sensible starting point for the court's analysis of the evidence relating to the charge he faces. On his account, he knew nothing about, and had no interest in, the box concealing the cocaine that police located in the Honda's trunk. However, the implication of his evidence was clear. Mr. Adams was responsible for any evidence found on the S5 phone linking someone who used it to the box and the cocaine concealed within it. Further, according to Mr. Nwankwo's evidence, he was not reaching into the Honda's trunk when police arrested him because he had any interest in the box concealing the cocaine. Instead, he thought he was there to grab Mr. Adams's personal belongings because that was what Mr. Adams, his friend, asked him to do.

[118] Recognizing the importance of never shifting the burden of proof to an accused person, since Mr. Nwankwo testified in his defence, I will follow the analytical framework suggested by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. W. (D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, at pp. 757-58. Accordingly, if I believe Mr. Nwankwo's evidence, he is entitled to be found not guilty. Alternatively, even if, after carefully considering his testimony, I do not believe him, I must still consider whether his evidence leaves me with a reasonable doubt. If it does, then I must, of course, find him not guilty. Finally, even if I do not believe Mr. Nwankwo and his evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I must still consider whether the Crown has proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the remaining evidence.

[119] After carefully considering Mr. Nwankwo's testimony, I do not believe his evidence that he did not know about the cocaine in the box and had no interest in it. Nor does his evidence leave me with a reasonable doubt concerning these key issues. There are various reasons why I have come to these conclusions, which I shall briefly explain.

[120] Mr. Nwankwo described the unusual arrangement of him and Mr. Adams sharing his S5 phone as the result of Mr. Adams's wife having the password to his phone. As a result, Mr. Adams could not communicate with his mistress using his phone because he risked his wife discovering his affair if he did so.

[121] However, if Mr. Adams wanted to shield communications between him and his mistress, why would he not just change the password on his phone to something his wife did not know? Moreover, if he worried that his wife might figure out his new password, Mr. Adams could even routinely change it. Surely that would be a far simpler and more convenient solution to his purported problem than taking the rather unusual step of sharing another person's phone. And if he was especially risk averse, even purchasing a second inexpensive phone would be a far more practical solution to the problem Mr. Nwankwo claimed Mr. Adams faced.

[122] On Mr. Nwankwo's account, Mr. Adams used the S5 all the time at the residence, even when his wife was home. Including while Mr. Adams was in the living room on the afternoon of November 14, 2017, around the time “Solomon” sent the photographs of the box and the items concealing the cocaine over WhatsApp. It is difficult to understand why Mr. Adams routinely using Mr. Nwankwo's phone would not alone arouse his wife's suspicion; after all, he had a phone of his own.

[123] Additionally, as Mr. Nwankwo's testimony unfolded, he suggested that it was not just Marcia who Mr. Adams was seeing but other women too. He painted a picture of Mr. Adams as a shameless philanderer. If true, one is left to wonder how Mr. Adams would manage his insatiable need to speak to women other than his wife during the many weeks each year that Mr. Nwankwo took his S5 phone with him to the Bahamas. Did he stop talking to all these other women he pursued outside of his marriage when Mr. Nwankwo was away with his S5 phone? Mr. Nwankwo's evidence that he would communicate messages to Mr. Adams during these periods strains credulity. After all, that would not enable Mr. Adams to call these women back, hardly a solution to his purported problem.

[124] It is also odd that although Mr. Nwankwo did not give the location of the S5 phone any thought at all while he was out of the house much of the day on November 14, 2017, he nevertheless grabbed it from the couch before heading out for the evening when Mr. Adams called him outside. I do not accept his explanation that he did so because he worried one of Mr. Adams's girlfriends would call that phone and his wife might answer it. Why did Mr. Nwankwo not have the same concern about where the phone was in the house earlier in the day? And why would he be more concerned about Mr. Adams's wife discovering his infidelity than Mr. Adams was? After all, it was Mr. Adams who left the phone on the couch, according to Mr. Nwankwo.

[125] Additionally, there were a series of text messages and even a seven-minute voice call over WhatsApp between whoever was using the S5 phone and "Solomon" on the morning of November 14, 2017. Interspersed with these communications were other messages received on the S5 phone from members of Mr. Nwankwo's family. There were also incoming voice calls from Mr. Nwankwo's brother. One call just before 8:00 a.m. lasted about three minutes, and another, at around noon, of a similar duration.

[126] These messages and calls from members of Mr. Nwankwo's family to the S5 phone during the first part of November 14, 2017, cannot be reconciled with his testimony. Mr. Nwankwo insisted that he had not seen the S5 since the preceding day and only first saw it on November 14 when Mr. Adams was using it in the living room after they returned from Vaughan Mills.

[127] During cross-examination, when confronted with the seeming conflict between his testimony and the calls to the S5 phone from his brother on November 14, 2017, Mr. Nwankwo testified that his brother and Mr. Adams knew one another. Therefore, he suggested, they might have had reason to chat that day. However, I also found that explanation less than convincing.

[128] If Mr. Nwankwo's evidence concerning the S5 phone were true and his brother and Mr. Adams might have reason to chat, why would Mr. Nwankwo's brother not call Mr. Adams on his phone? After all, Mr. Adams had a phone of his own. Similarly, if he was trying to get a hold of Mr. Nwankwo, why would his brother not call him on his S7 phone? According to Mr. Nwankwo, the S7 phone was the one he primarily used in Canada; one would think a close relative like his brother would know that.

[129] It is also impossible to reconcile Mr. Nwankwo's testimony regarding Mr. Adams using his S5 phone with other reliable evidence. After Mr. Adams's arrest on November 14, 2017, the police seized his phone from the centre console of the pick-up truck and subjected it to a forensic examination. It revealed that on November 10, 2017, at 11:38 a.m., someone using Mr. Nwankwo's S5 phone sent a photograph via WhatsApp to Mr. Adams's phone. The photo was of a sheet of paper that appears like the one affixed to the box with the purported recipient's name and address. It read, "Chris Cohen 104-1920 ellesmere road Suit (sic) # 241 Scarborough ON M1H 3G1 Canada #416.4819154." (The sheet of paper in the photo misspelled the word "Suite" as "Suit," whereas the label on the box spelled that word correctly.)

[130] Four minutes later, Mr. Adams sent that image from his phone using WhatsApp to a phone number registered to Mr. Allen. Had Mr. Adams used Mr. Nwankwo's S5 phone for communications concerning the box concealing the cocaine, which was the implication of Mr. Nwankwo's testimony, why would he send something to his own phone concerning the shipment that could serve to incriminate him? That would hardly be consistent with Mr. Adams using Mr. Nwankwo's phone to distance himself from the box containing the cocaine.

[131] Further, Mr. Nwankwo conceded there were communications on his S5 over WhatsApp, on the afternoon of November 14, 2017, between him and a friend. The friend messaged him at 1:09:25 p.m., asking, "U back in bahamas." Mr. Nwankwo acknowledged that he responded to that message at 4:00 p.m. by writing "Soon." Recall, however, that photos from “Solomon” of the items in the box concealing cocaine came in over WhatsApp at 3:50 p.m. At 3:56:58 p.m., the response to those photos that read "Cool," was sent. Mr. Nwankwo insisted he did not see those photographs and did not send that response.

[132] However, when confronted with the interspersed messages between him and a person he acknowledged was his friend, Mr. Nwankwo responded by insisting that he and Mr. Adams were essentially handing the S5 back and forth between them after they returned from Vaughan Mills that afternoon. I found that aspect of Mr. Nwankwo's evidence rather incredible. By the end of his testimony, Mr. Nwankwo effectively described the S5 passing between him and Mr. Adams almost like a "hot potato." That makes no sense. It is far removed from the purported arrangement that Mr. Nwankwo initially described during his testimony of the men sharing the phone to permit Mr. Adams to speak to women he was pursuing outside his marriage.

[133] Finally, as noted, Mr. Nwankwo insisted during his testimony that he did not know anyone named "Solomon." However, on November 14, 2017, beginning at 9:42 p.m. and continuing until 9:47 p.m., while Mr. Nwankwo was in police custody, there were seven calls to his S7 phone from the phone number (597) 716-6951. That was the phone number associated with the contact for "Solomon" on the S5 phone. During cross-examination, Mr. Nwankwo was at a loss to explain why Solomon would have been calling him on his S7 phone the night of his arrest, given his earlier unequivocal testimony that he did not know him.

[134] In short, because his testimony does not survive logical scrutiny and is inconsistent with other more reliable evidence, I do not believe it, nor does it leave me with a reasonable doubt.

[135] In the end, a substantial body of circumstantial evidence supports a somewhat irresistible inference that Mr. Nwankwo was a member of a conspiracy to possess the cocaine concealed within the box found in the Honda's trunk for the purpose of trafficking.

[136] First, the S5 phone the police found in his pocket at the time of his arrest undoubtedly belonged to him, and given its contents, he was unquestionably the person using it.

[137] Second, on November 10, 2017, at 11:38 a.m., Mr. Nwankwo sent a photograph via WhatsApp to Mr. Adams's phone using his S5 phone. The photo was of a sheet of paper setting out the box's purported recipient's name and address, which was the address of the UPS store and postal box number.

[138] Third, on the afternoon of November 10, 2017, Mr. Nwankwo used the S5 phone to conduct Google Maps searches for the address of the UPS store where the shipper had sent the box concealing the cocaine.

[139] Fourth, at 3:50 p.m. on November 14, 2017, around the time when Mr. Williams was retrieving the box from the UPS store, the person apparently responsible for sending the shipment, "Solomon," sent Mr. Nwankwo photos of the only items inside the box that concealed cocaine, to which he replied, "cool." No doubt, the shipper did that to help Mr. Nwankwo locate those items and more efficiently extract the drugs.

[140] Fifth, only 90 minutes after Mr. Williams retrieved the box from the UPS store, two police officers observed Mr. Nwankwo reaching into the Honda's open trunk, where the box concealing the cocaine was located.

[141] Finally, on the evening of November 14, 2017, after Mr. Nwankwo's arrest, “Solomon” called his S7 phone repeatedly. Most likely, he did so to confirm the cocaine had been found when he could not get a call to ring through to Mr. Nwankwo's S5 phone as it was not connected to a Wi-Fi network after police seized it.

[142] In my view, this collection of evidence supports only one reasonable inference; that Mr. Nwankwo was, at the very least, a member of a conspiracy to possess the cocaine hidden within the box. Moreover, given its quantity and value, the conspiracy's object was undoubtedly to traffic the cocaine. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the totality of the evidence as it concerns Mr. Nwankwo furnishes no other plausible alternative inference.

[143] As a result, the court finds Mr. Nwankwo guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the offence charged against him in count 4 of the indictment.

E. Has the Crown Proven the Charges Against Mr. Allen Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

[144] The indictment charges Mr. Allen with three separate offences relating to the cocaine concealed in the box. First, it charges Mr. Allen and Mr. Williams jointly with conspiring with a person or persons unknown to import cocaine (count 2). Additionally, Mr. Allen also faces a charge, jointly with Mr. Williams, of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 3). Further, along with Mr. Williams and Mr. Nwankwo, a charge of conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 4). Finally, concerning cocaine located by police when they executed a search warrant at a residence in Brampton, Mr. Allen faces a separate charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 5).

[145] I will address the charges concerning the cocaine concealed in the box before considering the single count involving the cocaine found at the residence.

i) The charges concerning the cocaine concealed in the box

[146] There is a preliminary factual issue that I must resolve before evaluating the evidence as it concerns the three charges Mr. Allen faces relating to the cocaine imported into Canada concealed in the box picked up from the UPS store.

A finding concerning identity

[147] The Crown maintains that the evidence establishes that Mr. Allen was the person who met Mr. Williams at the Superstore parking lot and who drove the car that sped away with the box containing the cocaine when police arrived. In contrast, defence counsel submits that the Crown has failed to prove that Mr. Allen was the person who fled from police at the Superstore. The resolution of that question is important because it controls whether to place the driver's flight on the evidentiary scales when weighing the Crown's case against Mr. Allen.

[148] A video surveillance camera captured the events at the Superstore parking lot. However, positioned at the opposite end of the parking lot, the recording from that camera is of no assistance in identifying the driver of the fleeing vehicle. Nevertheless, although the camera is far away, one can see that the fleeing car is silver or grey.

[149] Nor were the two police officers who attended the Superstore parking lot able to identify Mr. Allen as the driver of the fleeing car. Events there unfolded extraordinarily quickly and in circumstances where adrenaline was running high. The best the first police officer on the scene could offer was that the driver was a Black male wearing a dark coat with fur around the hood. He could also describe the vehicle, which he testified was a grey two-door Honda.

[150] However, that officer did not record the vehicle's make or colour in his notes. Nevertheless, he insisted that he remembered these details concerning the car and the man driving it. This officer later attended the townhouse complex and transported Mr. Allen to the police division. He testified that he believed Mr. Allen was the same person who drove the Honda away from the Superstore but conceded that he could not be sure.

[151] The second police officer to arrive at the Superstore parking lot, who drove the vehicle struck by the fleeing car, could not assist in identifying the driver or the vehicle's make. Although he testified that the car was "silver/grey," he readily conceded that he could not tell who was driving or how many people were inside when it sped away. Nor did he make a notation concerning that fleeing car's colour even though he prepared his notes while waiting on a tow truck at the Superstore parking lot.

[152] The best evidence concerning who was driving the car that fled the Superstore parking lot comes from the combination of information gleaned from the GPS tracking device concealed in the box and video surveillance from a gas station.

[153] The GPS tracker fixes the box's departure from the Superstore parking lot at 4:28 p.m. It then heads east before travelling north. It was rush hour at the time, and traffic was heavy. Beginning precisely 21 minutes later, the GPS tracker records the box remaining stationary at a gas station on Oakdale Road from 4:51:25 p.m. to 4:54:35 p.m.

[154] Video surveillance from that gas station captures a two-door silver Honda pulling up and stopping next to a pump at 4:51 p.m. A man gets out and pumps some gas before going inside. Video cameras inside the gas station record the man as he pays. The man wore a black hoody-style sweatshirt, and the hood was up. Nevertheless, the recordings are of high quality, with one camera capturing a direct and close-up view of the man's face. Having watched those recordings and comparing the man in the gas station to Mr. Allen, both at trial and in the booking photograph of him taken that day, I have no doubt he is the man who attended the gas station late on the afternoon of November 14, 2017.

[155] After leaving the gas station, the GPS tracker shows the box travelling north before heading west, north once more, and then west again. It finally arrives at the townhouse complex at 5:14 p.m.

[156] The first two RCMP officers arrived at the townhouse complex at 5:30 p.m. A couple of minutes after their arrival, they observed a Black man wearing a winter jacket with his hood up and fur on the hood, walking away from the area where they later located the Honda with the box containing the cocaine in its trunk.

[157] There is also Mr. Nwankwo's evidence that Mr. Allen arrived at the door of the residence at the townhouse complex that he shared with Mr. Adams. He testified the three men then drove together in the pick-up and stopped next to the Honda just before their arrest.

[158] Recall that the police arrested Mr. Nwankwo, Mr. Adams, and Mr. Allen at 5:35 p.m. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Allen was seated in the pick-up's rear passenger seat on the driver's side. The arresting officer directed him out of the vehicle and onto the ground. The officer located the key for the Honda on the ground a few inches away from Mr. Allen's right hand.

[159] When arrested, Mr. Allen was wearing a dark hooded winter jacket that had fur on its hood. During cross-examination, the arresting officer testified that, in his opinion, Mr. Allen was the same person he saw, at 5:32 p.m., walking away from the area where the Honda was parked after he and his partner first arrived at the townhouse complex. However, he acknowledged not making any notation to that effect and readily conceded that he could not be certain it was the same person.

[160] Further, the evidence establishes that Mr. Allen is the registered owner of the silver two-door Honda Accord in which police found the box concealing the cocaine in its trunk after they arrested the three accused.

[161] Finally, at the townhouse complex, Mr. Allen's Honda had minor damage to its front left fender, consistent with where the car that fled the Superstore parking lot would have impacted the police vehicle.

[162] All this evidence, considered cumulatively, convinces me that Mr. Allen was the person who met with Mr. Williams at the Superstore parking lot to take custody of the box concealing the cocaine. He was the man who hurriedly took the box from the Nissan, placed it in the Honda's trunk, sped away, and, in the process, struck the vehicle driven by the second police officer who arrived at that location. In my view, all the evidence, when considered cumulatively, supports no other reasonable conclusion.

The Evidence against Mr. Allen

[163] The Crown's case against Mr. Allen concerning all three charges that he faces involving the box containing the cocaine found in the trunk of his Honda can be briefly summarized as follows.

[164] On September 9, 2017, Mr. Allen sent a Western Union money transfer for $1,000 to someone in Suriname. (Police found a receipt for this transfer in his name when they searched the house in Brampton on November 16, 2017.) Four days later, on September 13, 2017, Mr. Williams rented the UPS postal box using a false name and identification.

[165] Police located Mr. Adams's phone in the centre console of the pick-up truck at the time of the arrests. (Although police seized an iPhone from Mr. Allen's jacket pocket at the time of his arrest, they could not ultimately extract data from it.) The police forensically examined Mr. Adams's phone, which showed various communications between whoever was using it and a phone number registered to Mr. Allen on the Rogers network.

[166] First, there were regular telephone calls between Mr. Adams's phone and someone using the phone registered to Mr. Allen between October 30, 2017 and November 14, 2017. That included Mr. Allen's phone calling Mr. Adams's phone on November 14, 2017. First, at 11:28 a.m., the call lasted about a minute. A second call at 3:30 p.m. lasted slightly more than a minute. And a final call that day, at 5:18 p.m., lasted only 13 seconds. That last call corresponds with the approximate time when Mr. Allen would have arrived at the townhouse complex that afternoon.

[167] Second, the users of those phones also regularly exchanged text messages between September 8, 2017 and November 14, 2017. These included:

• A text sent from Mr. Adams's phone to Mr. Allen's phone on October 22, 2017, read, "A name and phone." And the next day, another text from Mr. Adams's phone to Mr. Allen's phone read, "chris (sic) Cohen." (Recall that was the name of the purported recipient of the box concealing the cocaine.)

• The next day, October 23, 2017, a text from Mr. Allen's to Mr. Adams's phone read, "They send it." And a text from Mr. Adams's phone, in reply, "waiting to hear from them."

• Then, a few weeks later, on November 10, 2017, a text from Mr. Adams's phone to Mr. Allen's phone, asking: "Are we still okay for today." And responses from Mr. Allen's phone within minutes: "Still waiting," then "Tomorrow morning," and, finally, "Is it delivered." And responses from Mr. Adams's phone, reading, "they said you will have the final say but it was." With a further text, hours later, asking, "any info."

• Finally, on November 14, 2017, texts were sent from Mr. Adams's phone to Mr. Allen's phone; at 9:11 a.m. "Hello goodmorning (sic)," and at 11:16 a.m. "on my way." A text in response from Mr. Allen's phone at 11:20 a.m. read, "I told him already." Later that day, at 12:37 p.m., another text from Mr. Adams's phone to Mr. Allen's phone read, "please call if any update." And a response to that from Mr. Allen's phone, "He's just waiting on it."

[168] Finally, between November 9, 2017, and November 14, 2017, there were WhatsApp text messages exchanged between Mr. Adams's phone and a WhatsApp account that corresponds with the username and phone number for Mr. Allen's phone on the Rogers network, as well as a photograph sent by Mr. Adams to Mr. Allen. These included:

• On November 9, 2017, a message to Mr. Adams from Mr. Allen read, "Still waiting." And a response from Mr. Adams, "ok just call and thanks," and a reply from Mr. Allen, "I will."

• On November 10, 2017, at 11:42 a.m., the photo received by Mr. Adams from Mr. Nwankwo, of a sheet of paper that appears like the one affixed to the box with the purported recipient's name and address, was sent by Mr. Adams to Mr. Allen.

• On November 13, 2017, a message to Mr. Allen from Mr. Adams read, "Hello goodmorning (sic)," a response from Mr. Allen, "Hello," and a reply from Mr. Adams, "how are u doing any plans for tomorrow?" Mr. Allen responds, "Where going to what happened if they made the changes in time (sic)."

• Finally, on November 14, 2017, Mr. Adams sent a message to Mr. Allen at 9:13 a.m. that read, "Goodmorning (sic) try to call your friend to have an update." And then, at 10:54 a.m., another, "please just want to know if he made the call." Finally, Mr. Adams sent another message to Mr. Allen at 4:51 p.m., writing, simply, "Guinness?"

[169] On November 14, 2017, at 4:25 p.m., about half an hour after Mr. Williams retrieved the box concealing the cocaine from the UPS store, he and Mr. Allen met in a remote section of the Superstore's parking lot.

[170] When the first police officer who arrived at the Superstore parking lot confronted the two men and yelled, "Police, get on the ground," unlike Mr. Williams, Mr. Allen did not comply. Instead, he quickly grabbed the box from the trunk of the Nissan, placed it in the trunk of his Honda, entered his car and sped off. While doing so, he struck the vehicle driven by the second police officer who arrived at that location.

[171] The data from the GPS tracking device hidden in the box concealing the cocaine shows that Mr. Allen took a circuitous route to the townhouse complex after leaving the Superstore parking lot. He initially travelled east before heading north and stopping for gas. After that, Mr. Allen continued north before heading west, north once more, and then west again. The less-than-direct route he took from the Superstore parking lot to the townhouse complex suggests he was attempting to ensure that the police were not following him.

[172] Mr. Allen arrived at the townhouse complex at approximately 5:14 p.m. He parked his car in the visitor's parking of the townhouse complex before walking from there to Mr. Adams's residence, where Mr. Nwankwo also lived. The three men then got into the pick-up to drive the short distance from Mr. Adams's townhouse to where the Honda was parked.

[173] Mr. Allen, while seated in the rear passenger side seat of the pick-up truck, must have popped the Honda's trunk open using his key fob for the vehicle. He remained in the pick-up while Mr. Nwankwo got out to retrieve the box concealing the cocaine from the Honda's trunk, at which point police arrested all three men.

Analysis of the evidence

[174] The entirety of the evidence, when considered cumulatively, as required, satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Allen is guilty of the three offences charged in the indictment relating to the cocaine in the box. The evidence supports compelling inferences that Mr. Allen participated in a scheme to import the cocaine concealed in the box into Canada and deliver it to Mr. Adams and Mr. Nwankwo at the townhouse complex after Mr. Williams picked it up from the UPS store. The evidence does not support any alternative and reasonable inferences. I will briefly highlight those aspects of the evidence that convince me that Mr. Allen is guilty of the three charges he faces involving the cocaine concealed in the box.

[175] Concerning the charge of conspiracy to import cocaine (count 2), there is Mr. Allen's money transfer to Suriname only four days before Mr. Williams rented the UPS postal box using a false name. That was the country associated with the address of the purported shipper listed on the box concealing the cocaine.

[176] Additionally, almost two weeks before the box arrived in Canada, Mr. Adams shared the name of the purported recipient of the box, "Chris Cohen," with Mr. Allen. Further, in the period preceding Mr. Williams picking up the package from the UPS store, there were messages between Mr. Adams and Mr. Allen, including the photograph setting out the address of the purported recipient of the box. Although the messages are cryptic, it is apparent that they concerned receiving a delivery and Mr. Allen communicating with a third party, undoubtedly Mr. Williams, about retrieving whatever was going to be delivered.

[177] Ultimately, Mr. Allen met Mr. Williams at the Superstore parking lot within a half-hour of him picking up the box. Despite the arrival of the police, Mr. Allen hurriedly transferred the box from Mr. Williams's car to his own and took flight, striking a police car in the process. That, combined with the circuitous route he took to the townhouse complex, along with his involvement at an organizational level, leaves no room for doubt that he knew there was cocaine in the box.

[178] All this evidence, considered cumulatively, leaves me with no doubt that Mr. Allen played an active role in coordinating the importation of cocaine into Canada and was a member of a conspiracy that had that object as its end. Moreover, the incriminating evidence does not lend itself to any other alternative reasonable inferences.

[179] With respect to the charges of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 3) and conspiracy to do so (count 4), the evidence is overwhelming. I do not doubt that Mr. Allen knowingly transported cocaine from the Superstore to the townhouse complex. Further, he did so in fulfillment of an agreement between him and at least Mr. Adams that he was to be the go-between separating Mr. Adams (and likely Mr. Nwankwo) from Mr. Williams, the person tasked with picking up the box. There are simply no other reasonable alternative inferences available based on the whole of the evidence.

[180] Accordingly, Mr. Allen is found guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine (count 2), possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 3), and conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 4).

ii) The charge concerning the cocaine found in the residence

[181] On the evening of November 16, 2017, the RCMP executed a search warrant at 19 Dovehaven Crescent in the City of Brampton, a two-storey, four-bedroom home. In a drop ceiling in the basement, accessible from the furnace room, police found a bag containing 303.5 grams of cocaine. Mr. Allen faces a charge of possessing that cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (count 5).

[182] The evidence overwhelmingly establishes that Mr. Allen was living at 19 Dovehaven Crescent. Inside the residence, police found mail addressed to Mr. Allen at that address and an expired passport in his name. In the largest of the four bedrooms, they also found money transfer documents listing Mr. Allen's name as the sender, one for the $1000 money transfer to Suriname on September 9, 2017, a photograph of him on the mirror of a dresser, and men's clothing in the closet. Finally, his vehicle registration for the Honda and his account with Rogers each listed 19 Dovehaven Crescent as his address. Based on all this evidence, I do not doubt that Mr. Allen resided at that home.

[183] However, the fact that Mr. Allen lived at the residence is not alone sufficient to prove he had control over, and knowledge of the cocaine found in the basement's drop ceiling, the essential elements for establishing possession: R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560, at para 19. The evidence suggests that there were also other residents. The police found mail addressed to at least one other person inside the residence. Beyond the principal bedroom and its ensuite bathroom, there were additional bedrooms and a bathroom on the second floor that appeared consistent with others living or staying at the residence.

[184] Finally, the police did not subject the bag containing the cocaine to any forensic analysis. For example, they did not test it for fingerprints or DNA evidence.

[185] It deserves mention that the Crown did not bring a count-to-count similar fact application. Accordingly, Mr. Allen's involvement with the cocaine concealed in the box imported into Canada cannot be given any weight when deciding if the Crown has proven the charge he faces concerning the cocaine found in his residence.

[186] Ultimately, based on all the evidence and a lack of evidence, I cannot be sure that someone other than Mr. Allen, who either lived or regularly stayed at the house, might not be responsible for the cocaine hidden in the basement ceiling.

[187] Therefore, it follows that Mr. Allen must be found not guilty of the charge of possessing the cocaine found in his residence for the purpose of trafficking (count 5).

Conclusion

[188] For these reasons, the court shall register the following verdicts on the charges faced by each accused in the indictment.

[189] The court finds Mr. Williams not guilty of the four charges he faces in the indictment (counts 1 through 4).

[190] The court finds Mr. Nwankwo guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the offence charged in count 4.

[191] The court finds Mr. Allen guilty of conspiracy to import cocaine, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (counts 2, 3 and 4). In contrast, the court finds Mr. Allen not guilty of possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the offence charged in count 5.

J. Stribopoulos J.

Released: September 29, 2022

COURT FILE NO.: CRIM J(F) 19-1769

DATE: 2022 09 29

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

• and –

FITZROY ALLEN, CHIJIOKE EMMANUEL NWANKWO & SHOMARI ESIRI WILLIAMS

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice J. Stribopoulos

Released: September 29, 2022