Reasons for Judgment

Court File No.: CR-23-5943-0000
Date: 2025-03-04
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Between:
His Majesty the King
and
Matthew Christopher Reis, Accused

Appearances:
Amanda Tubbs, for the Crown
Julie Santarosa, for the Accused

Heard: December 17 and 18, 2024 and January 8, 2025
Released: March 4, 2025
Justice: Jennifer E. Bezaire

Introduction

[1] The accused, Matthew Christopher Reis, stands charged with possession of a Schedule I substance, crystal methamphetamine, for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19 ("CDSA"). Mr. Reis has pleaded not guilty.

[2] At the start of trial, counsel for the accused made several admissions, including the following:

a. Jurisdiction;
b. The substance of the drugs;
c. The continuity of the exhibits and drugs;
d. The quantity of the drugs; and
e. That the quantity is for the purpose of trafficking.

[3] It is undisputed that, at the time of his arrest, Mr. Reis was holding a brown purse that contained a makeup bag that contained 44.8 grams of crystal methamphetamine. The issue at trial was knowledge and control.

The Evidence

[4] The events that gave rise to the subject charge occurred on February 14, 2023. Windsor Police Constables Gatti and Abdul-Mahid were dispatched to 671 Wyandotte St. E. for a possible overdose involving Sarah Bianchi. Ms. Bianchi was tended to by paramedics and ultimately taken to hospital.

[5] Mr. Reis was found standing adjacent to the ambulance doors. He and Ms. Bianchi were together when she passed out. Mr. Reis testified that he was with Ms. Bianchi to resolve a dispute between her and his girlfriend regarding Ms. Bianchi’s cell phone. He planned to return the cell phone to Ms. Bianchi. They went for a walk and did some shopping. Ms. Bianchi was carrying the black purse, brown purse, and shopping bags. They were together for approximately two hours, yet Mr. Reis never returned the cell phone to Ms. Bianchi.

[6] They ultimately entered the convenience store, located at 671 Wyandotte St E. Ms. Bianchi became agitated with the store clerk, started acting a “little spacey”, and then passed out. Mr. Reis carried and/or dragged her outside. He suspected she had overdosed, although he testified he never saw her use any drugs. A person passing by called 911.

[7] Per Constable Gatti’s evidence, Mr. Reis was holding two purses, one black and one brown, and just under ten shopping bags. Constable Gatti asked Ms. Bianchi if any of the items Mr. Reis was holding belonged to her and, in response, Mr. Reis handed the black purse to Constable Gatti. Constable Gatti searched the black purse, found nothing of concern, and gave it to Ms. Bianchi. This exchange is not, however, contained within Constable Gatti’s notes and is disputed by Mr. Reis.

[8] Per Mr. Reis’ evidence, he collected Ms. Bianchi’s shopping bags and brown purse after she passed out. He was holding them when the police arrived. He did not know where her black purse was but believed she was wearing it around her shoulder. He also believed it contained pre-paid credit cards that she used while shopping. He later testified that the black purse may have fallen onto the ground when Ms. Bianchi passed out. He denies holding it or giving it to Constable Gatti.

[9] With respect to the brown purse, it is undisputed that Mr. Reis told Constable Gatti it belonged to him. At trial, Mr. Reis testified that it was Ms. Bianchi’s purse, not his. He told the police it was his to safeguard it for Ms. Bianchi. He does not trust the police and has known things in police possession to disappear in the past. He was trying to be a good guy. He planned to take the bags and purse to Ms. Bianchi at the hospital.

[10] Constable Gatti conceded it was an anomaly for Mr. Reis to be holding the brown purse. He was wearing male-type clothes and had short hair. He was not cross-dressing. The brown purse and makeup bag were feminine in nature.

[11] Mr. Reis was the subject of a Windsor Police Arrest Bulletin. Upon providing his name to Constable Gatti, he was placed under arrest. Constable Gatti acknowledged that Mr. Reis was extremely compliant in providing his name.

[12] Mr. Reis testified that he did not know there was a bulletin out for his arrest. He expected the police and ambulance to attend given Ms. Bianchi was suspected of having overdosed. He stayed at the scene because he was concerned about Ms. Bianchi’s wellbeing. Had he known there was a bulletin out for his arrest, or that the brown purse contained controlled substances, he would not have stayed at the scene.

[13] Constable Abdul-Mahid searched Mr. Reis’ person incident to arrest and found the following items:

a. a black Infiniti scale in his front left pant pocket;
b. cellphone in the right pocket of his jacket; and
c. magnifying glass in the front left pocket of his jacket.

[14] Constable Gatti searched the shopping bags Mr. Reis was holding. There was nothing notable in the bags. She testified that they contained clothing but could not recall if it was male or female clothing. No inventory was taken of the items in the bags, nor were the bags tendered into evidence.

[15] Constable Gatti also searched the brown purse. In the main compartment, she found pre-cut tin foil, a scale, and a brown GUESS makeup bag. In the makeup bag, she found a large quantity of suspected crystal methamphetamine. She then arrested Mr. Reis on the charge of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

[16] The makeup bag was taken to Windsor Police headquarters where Constable Gatti conducted a more thorough search. One side of the makeup bag contained several small baggies and wrapped tinfoil containing suspected methamphetamines, crack cocaine, and fentanyl, as well as a scale.

[17] On the other side of the makeup bag, Constable Gatti found miscellaneous items, including a torch lighter, a USB cord, an empty baggy, candy, tampons and two hair ties.

[18] Photographs of the open purse and open makeup bag were introduced into evidence. No inventory was, however, taken of the items in the purse or make up bag other than those items that the police deemed to be related to the subject charge. Constable Gatti acknowledged that they could have contained other items and that some of the items visible in the photographs were feminine items, such as tampons. The purse and makeup bag were not introduced into evidence.

[19] The photographs admitted into evidence depict a pipe. Constable Gatti could not identify the pipe and did not know where it came from. She did not deem it important because she determined it was for personal use, although she admitted context is important in drug cases.

[20] No identification was found in the brown purse or makeup bag.

[21] On February 15, 2023, Constable Nickleson, a constable with the Windsor Police Drug Unit, reviewed and analyzed the evidence seized. The contents of evidence bag E164534 included two baggies of crystal methamphetamine (27.8g and 17g) as confirmed by Health Canada Certificates 2229849T and 2229850T. The drugs were retrieved from inside the makeup bag. The makeup bag also included crack cocaine and fentanyl.

[22] The contents of evidence bag E164535 included the following:

a. 2 digital scales, one found on Mr. Reis’ person, and one found in the brown purse. The scales were functional. They also had white residue on them. One tested positive for cocaine; the other was negative.
b. One empty baggy.
c. Strips of tinfoil.
d. Red and white case with fold out magnifying glasses
e. 20-25 tinfoil strips, some new and some used.

[23] No fingerprint or DNA analysis was done.

[24] There exists no evidence that Mr. Reis opened the purse or the makeup bag. Constable Gatti acknowledged that to access the drugs inside, Mr. Reis would need to open the purse and then open the makeup bag. All the drugs seized were found inside the makeup bag.

Governing Principles

[25] Mr. Reis is presumed to be innocent. He can only be convicted if the Crown proves the essential elements of the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden to do so rests with the Crown and never shifts. There is no onus on Mr. Reis to prove anything, least of all his innocence. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is a significant standard. While proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not the same as absolute certainty, it is far closer to that standard than it is to proof on a balance of probabilities.

Analysis

[26] Per s. 4(3) of the CDSA, possession includes personal possession, constructive possession, and joint possession. The Crown submits that Mr. Reis was in personal possession, or alternatively joint possession, of the controlled substance. Knowledge and control are essential elements of both types of possession.

[27] A person is in possession of a substance if he is aware that he has physical custody and control of the substance. Control means the person has some power or authority over the substance, whether or not he used that power or authority: R. v. Pham, 2006 SCC 26, paras 13-18, aff’g 77 O.R. (3d) 501 (C.A.); R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, para 16.

[28] I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Reis had control of the substance in question. He was holding the brown purse, which contained the makeup bag with the substance inside, leading up to and at the time of his arrest. He identified the purse as his own and intended to take it with him to the hospital. Regardless of whether the purse belonged to Mr. Reis or Ms. Bianchi, Mr. Reis had authority over it at the time of his arrest.

[29] I am not, however, satisfied that Mr. Reis had the requisite knowledge. There is no evidence that Mr. Reis opened the purse, much less the makeup bag, or ever looked inside them. Constable Gatti could not recall if the purse was open or closed when she seized it but testified that the makeup bag was closed. He would have needed to open it to observe the controlled substance.

[30] The Crown’s case regarding knowledge is based on circumstantial evidence. The Crown submits that there are only two reasonable conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence, both of which result in a finding of guilt:

a. the brown purse belonged to Mr. Reis and as such, he was fully aware of its contents; or
b. the brown purse belonged to Ms. Bianchi and the only reasonable inference to be made is that Mr. Reis knew the nature of its contents. Ms. Bianchi would not have entrusted such a large quantity of a controlled substance to Mr. Reis unless he knew the nature of its contents. The Crown relies on the Ontario Court of Appeal decisions of R. v. Bains, 2015 ONCA 677, para 157; R. v. Robinson, 2009 ONCA 626, paras 39-40; and R. v. Sandhu, 2017 ONCA 709, para 4 to support this inference.

[31] The Crown also relies on the evidence regarding the black purse. Unlike the brown purse, Mr. Reis provided the black purse to Constable Gatti. She searched the purse and found no controlled substances. Mr. Reis knew that if he provided the brown purse to Constable Gatti, it would also be searched, resulting in his and Ms. Bianchi’s arrest given the controlled substance inside the makeup bag. The Crown submits that this is the reason Mr. Reis claimed the brown purse was his and did not provide it to Constable Gatti. He knew full well there was a controlled substance inside the purse.

[32] The approach to be taken when considering circumstantial evidence such as this was discussed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, para 30. To be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of Mr. Reis, I must be satisfied that there is no other reasonable explanation for the drugs being in the purse Mr. Reis was holding other than that Mr. Reis knew and had a degree of control over them. It is not enough that the inference of guilt is the strongest inference; it must be the only reasonable inference.

[33] Alternative inferences need not be based on proven facts. The court must consider “other plausible theories” or “other reasonable possibilities” that are inconsistent with guilt. The Crown may need to negate the reasonable possibilities, but the Crown need not “negate every possible conjecture, no matter how irrational or fanciful, which might be consistent with the innocence of the accused”: Villaroman, at para. 37.

[34] I accept that the two theories put forth by the Crown are plausible. I do not, however, accept that they are the only plausible theories based on the evidence. I find it to be just as plausible that Mr. Reis was holding the brown purse for Ms. Bianchi because of her medical emergency and that he had no knowledge of its contents. Mr. Reis claims he told the police it was his purse to ensure it did not go missing; he was trying to help Ms. Bianchi. There is no evidence that he ever opened it or looked inside.

[35] It is undisputed that the brown purse and makeup bag are feminine in nature. They also contained feminine items that would be of no use to Mr. Reis, such as tampons and hair ties. Constable Gatti admitted that Mr. Reis was not cross-dressing and that the purse and makeup bag did not fit with his appearance. Similarly, Mr. Reis did not have long hair.

[36] Given the feminine nature of the purse and some of its contents, I find it to be more likely that the purse and contents belonged to Ms. Bianchi. Ms. Bianchi passed out and was being tended to by paramedics. It is logical in these circumstances that Mr. Reis would have retrieved her belongings.

[37] The difference between this case and the cases put forth by the Crown to support an inference of knowledge due to the large quantity of drugs is that Ms. Bianchi was in the midst of a medical emergency. She did not provide the bags or purses to Mr. Reis; he retrieved them when she passed out.

[38] Ms. Bianchi was not called as a witness. I have no evidence from her as to whose purse Mr. Reis was holding. Further, Ms. Bianchi’s medical condition was not put into evidence, other than it being a suspected overdose. While Constable Gatti testified that Ms. Bianchi was communicating with her, there is no evidence before the court that Ms. Bianchi entrusted Mr. Reis with the brown purse or even knew he was holding it. The Crown chose not to call Ms. Bianchi, leaving crucial gaps in the evidence that I cannot fill or reconcile.

[39] With respect to Mr. Reis’ evidence, I have applied the three-step analysis from the Supreme Court of Canada’s seminal decision in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, at p. 758:

a. The trial judge should first ask themselves whether they believe the testimony provided by the accused. If so, an acquittal must be entered.
b. If not, then, the second step requires a consideration by the trial judge as to whether the accused person’s evidence causes them to have a reasonable doubt concerning the accused person’s guilt. If so, an acquittal must be entered.
c. However, if the answer to the first and second questions are no, then the final step in the analysis developed in W.(D.) requires the trial judge to consider the totality of the evidence presented to determine if the accused’s guilt has been proven by the Crown beyond a reasonable doubt.

[40] With respect to the first prong of the W.(D.) analysis, I cannot say that I believe the testimony of Mr. Reis so as to acquit on that basis. He told the police the purse was his and now claims it is Ms. Bianchi’s purse. He also has a lengthy criminal record, which includes crimes of dishonesty and trafficking.

[41] I do not accept Mr. Reis’ evidence as to what occurred on the night in question. He claimed he was with Ms. Bianchi to return her cellphone, yet after approximately two hours together, never returned it to her. He claimed he was worried Ms. Bianchi’s belongings would get lost or someone would take them, yet he did not safeguard her black purse, which he believed contained pre-paid credit cards. This is so regardless of whether I accept his evidence or Constable Gatti’s evidence regarding the black purse.

[42] I also cannot say that Mr. Reis’ evidence causes me to have reasonable doubt so as to acquit under the second prong of W.(D.). I do not believe his testimony for the reasons already noted. I also do not accept his explanation as to why he lied to the police about the brown purse. There are too many inconsistencies and a significant untruth with respect to ownership of the brown purse.

[43] This leaves me with the third prong of W.(D.), the totality of the evidence. I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Reis had knowledge of the substance contained within the brown purse, nor am I satisfied that this is an appropriate case to infer knowledge based on the quantity of drugs seized for the reasons already noted.

[44] There are issues with the evidence of the police. First, Constable Gatti’s evidence regarding Mr. Reis providing her with the black purse is not contained within or consistent with her notes, which indicate that Mr. Reis was found holding “a” purse, not multiple purses. As noted in R. v. Odgers, 2009 ONCJ 287, there is an inherent duty placed on officers to prepare complete and accurate notes. An officer’s credibility may be called into question where the officer fails to make note of important facts or there are serious inadequacies in the officer’s notes.

[45] The evidence regarding the black purse is important. It goes directly to knowledge. If Mr. Reis gave the black purse to Constable Gatti but not the brown purse, he very well may have known that there were drugs inside the brown purse. Unfortunately, Constable Gatti’s notes fail to reference this key piece of evidence and are inconsistent with her testimony on this issue. Accordingly, I cannot accept Constable Gatti’s evidence regarding the black purse.

[46] Second, no inventory was taken of the items contained in the brown purse, makeup bag, or shopping bags, other than the drug-related items. I agree with the defence that there may have been other items in the purse or makeup bag that link them to Ms. Bianchi or at least establish that they did not belong to Mr. Reis. All the items contained in the purse and makeup bag ought to have been inventoried and properly photographed.

[47] This is further supported by the lack of evidence regarding the pipe depicted in the photographs. Constable Gatti was unable to provide any evidence regarding the pipe or where it came from. This causes me to wonder what else may have been in the purse.

[48] Finally, no fingerprinting or DNA analysis was done. The pipe, plastic baggies, and aluminum foil may have all contained DNA or fingerprints. It seemed that neither Constable Gatti nor Constable Nickleson took control of the investigation, believing that the investigation was the other’s responsibility. As a result, no such evidence was obtained.

[49] I agree with the defence that investigations such as this depend largely on context. Without knowing the full contents of the purse and makeup bag and in the face of some clearly feminine items being contained therein, I cannot conclude that the purse belonged to Mr. Reis or that he had knowledge of the purse and its contents.

[50] Finally, I accept that Mr. Reis knew the police would attend a suspected overdose. The fact that he remained at the scene is telling. It makes no sense that he would have done so if he knew the purse he was holding contained drugs. He could have easily left before the police arrived or even after they arrived. He was not placed under arrest until after he provided the police with his name.

[51] Considering the totality of the evidence, and even though I have concerns with the evidence of Mr. Reis, I am not satisfied that the Crown has proven the offence charged beyond a reasonable doubt. At the end of the day, I am left with questions and doubts about whose purse Mr. Reis was holding and what he knew about its contents.

Disposition

[52] For these reasons, I find Mr. Reis not guilty of the offence of possession of a Schedule I substance, namely, crystal methamphetamine, for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA.

Jennifer E. Bezaire
Justice
Released: March 4, 2025