R. v. Parker, 2025 ONSC 1693

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-006
DATE: 2025-03-17
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
611 Ninth Avenue East, Owen Sound ON N4K 6Z4

RE: R. v. Parker
BEFORE: R. Chown
COUNSEL:
E. Barefoot, for the Crown
J. Gamble, for Mr. Parker
HEARD: January 27 and February 28, 2025

Reasons for Ruling on Entrapment Application

[1] A jury convicted Mr. Parker of 13 counts of trafficking various illegal drugs. For each count, he sold the drugs to an undercover officer. Mr. Parker brings this application for a stay of proceedings on the grounds of entrapment. I dismissed the application with reasons to follow. These are my reasons.

The Test for Entrapment

[2] To succeed with a claim of entrapment, an accused must prove one of the following:

1. The police provided him with the opportunity to commit an offence without acting on reasonable suspicion.
2. Although having such a reasonable suspicion, the police went beyond providing an opportunity and induced the commission of the offence.

See R. v. Mack, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 903, at p. 959. The required standard of proof is a balance of probabilities: Mack, at p. 975.

[3] In this case, Mr. Parker concedes that the police had the required grounds under the first branch. He limits his argument to the second branch.

Mr. Parker’s Background

[4] Mr. Parker did not testify at the trial proper but did testify in this application for a stay of proceedings. His fiancée, Irene Carter, also testified in the application.

[5] Mr. Parker is 64 years old. He has a grade nine education. He described having an abusive father. He said he grew up in the projects in Toronto. He said he is illiterate and unable to spell, but during his testimony it was apparent that he could read at least to some extent. He was quite capable of communicating with the undercover officer by text message.

[6] Mr. Parker said he has been diagnosed with ADHD and has had depression. He has longstanding substance abuse issues. He has been able to abstain from alcohol. He replaced a cocaine habit with crystal methamphetamine, although he continued to use cocaine at times. During June of 2022, when the events in this trial took place, he was using crystal methamphetamine and some cocaine when he could afford it. He is not employed, and his income is limited to ODSP.

[7] I accept that Mr. Parker has had longstanding substance abuse issues, that he has a very limited education, and that he may not be an intelligent person. I accept that, for these reasons, he was likely vulnerable to exploitation.

The First Transaction

[8] Although the defence argued that Mr. Parker was entrapped by police for all the transactions, and that they should all be stayed, the focus of the evidence and argument in this application related to the first transaction, which took place on June 1, 2022.

[9] At the trial, two undercover officers were permitted to testify under pseudonyms: “Eric” and “Billy.” They both testified that they were part of a team of police that was engaged in a project to target street-level drug dealers. George Parker was one of the people targeted by this investigation. The police had his photograph. The two officers testified that they went to Mr. Parker’s residence on June 1, 2022. Billy testified that his plan was to knock on the door and ask for crystal methamphetamine. He had been made aware that Mr. Parker used to live with a person named Darlene. His plan was to use that information in a pretext to build rapport with Mr. Parker.

[10] There were many similarities and some differences among the testimony of the officers and Mr. Parker and Ms. Carter.

a. Billy testified that, as he approached the door, Mr. Parker came to the door. Mr. Parker and Ms. Carter said that Ms. Carter answered the door.

b. Billy and Mr. Parker both testified that they had some discussion about Darlene and Billy. Both agreed that Billy first asked Mr. Parker for crystal methamphetamine.

c. Billy testified that Mr. Parker responded that he did not have any crystal methamphetamine, but he had “a point of down” (0.1 g of fentanyl) that he kept for people for emergencies. Mr. Parker agreed that he had 0.1 g of fentanyl in his bedroom.

d. Mr. Parker said that the officer went into a conversation saying his girlfriend or partner was at home very sick for 2½ days with nothing (meaning no drugs) and he was hoping Darlene was there to help him out. Mr. Parker suggests that he told Billy that if his partner was sick, he should take her to the hospital. Billy responded that she was worried about people finding out, and he asked if Mr. Parker could find anything. Mr. Parker said no, but the officer persisted, pleading, “I’m lost and I don’t know what to do.” Mr. Parker said that he knew he had one point of fentanyl in his bedroom that he kept for his own emergencies, and against his better judgment he decided to sell it to Billy. Mr. Parker said that his wife had passed away from an accidental overdose in 2001 and he had guilt about that, and he felt bad for Billy. He said he just couldn’t shut the door and say goodbye, so he made the wrong decision. Ms. Carter’s evidence generally supported Mr. Parker’s testimony on these points. In cross-examination, Billy denied that he talked to Mr. Parker about his (Billy’s) wife or girlfriend being ill. He denied that Mr. Parker turned him down three times.

e. Billy and Mr. Parker agreed that Mr. Parker told Billy to put $40 in a glass vase. Mr. Parker agreed that Billy put the money in the vase. Billy testified that Mr. Parker went into the residence and came back with some tinfoil containing “what looked like a point of fentanyl.” Billy testified that Mr. Parker put the tinfoil containing the fentanyl into his pocket (that is Billy’s pocket). Mr. Parker agreed that he went to his bedroom and came back and gave Billy 0.1 g of fentanyl.

f. Eric testified that Billy was at the door of the residence from 2:36 p.m. to 2:43 p.m. (seven minutes). Billy testified that the meeting was short. In cross-examination, it was suggested that Billy and Eric may have been there for half an hour. Billy denied this and said it would be closer to the seven-to-ten-minute range. During this time, Mr. Parker also gave Billy a “Text Now” number, although it turned out that this number did not work.

[11] Where the testimony of the officers and the testimony of Mr. Parker and Ms. Carter conflict, I preferred the testimony of the officers. On the point of whether there was any discussion about Billy’s wife or girlfriend being ill, I accept the officer’s testimony that there was no such conversation. I accept the officer’s testimony that Mr. Parker did not turn him down three times. I am prepared to accept that Mr. Parker engaged in the first transaction because he wanted to help the officer, but I do not accept that the officer’s efforts were persistent, or that he engaged in pleading for drugs.

[12] This was the first time Mr. Parker met Billy. The officer implied to Mr. Parker that they had met before, and Mr. Parker may have accepted that they had met before, but it was the first time they met. The first conversation was brief. I accept Eric’s evidence that Billy was at the door for seven minutes. Eric documented this and had no reason to distort this evidence.

The Test for Entrapment (Continued)

[13] Both parties rely on Mack as the leading authority on entrapment. I will not quote from the case in detail but will note that pp. 959 through 966 are particularly instructive in addressing the second branch of the test for entrapment (inducing the crime). Police are not permitted to exploit an accused’s vulnerabilities or human instincts of compassion, sympathy, and friendship. This would be offensive police conduct. Threats, implied or express, to the target of the investigation are impermissible. An objective assessment of the conduct of the police and their agents is required. The police “may not go beyond providing an opportunity.”

[14] The Mack case also provides, at p. 966, a list of factors that are useful to determine whether the police have employed means that go further than providing an opportunity. One of those factors is “whether an average person, with both strengths and weaknesses, in the position of the accused would be induced into the commission of a crime.” Lamer J. (as he then was) in Mack also said, at p. 976, that the defence of entrapment should only be recognized in the “clearest of cases.”

[15] In this case, Billy asked for crystal meth. Mr. Parker offered him fentanyl. The attempts by Billy to get Mr. Parker to sell him that first dose of fentanyl were not persistent. They were limited. Mr. Parker set the price. The officer did not offer substantial profit. The officer did not make multiple requests. There were no threats. The officer did not abuse a close relationship or a relationship of confidence and trust. Although Mr. Parker may have been vulnerable to exploitation, the officer’s conduct did not involve exploitation.

[16] Some of the factors listed in Mack do provide support for Mr. Parker’s position. Billy did use some deceit with his pretext that he used to buy from Darlene and that he had not seen Mr. Parker in a long time. This, however, was a very mild degree of deception, and undercover work always involves some deception. Billy did act in a very friendly way towards Mr. Parker, but it cannot be said he “befriended” Mr. Parker. Their contact always centred around drug transactions. Mr. Parker was vulnerable; however, Billy’s conduct was not exploitative of Mr. Parker’s vulnerabilities. Overall, the factors listed in Mack do not support Mr. Parker’s position.

[17] Comparing the facts of this case to the facts of Mack is also instructive. The police conduct here is far removed from the conduct in Mack, which involved months of effort by a police agent, illegal conduct by the police agent, and implied threats.

The Subsequent Transactions

[18] The officer testified that the “Text Now” number Mr. Parker provided him at the time of the first transaction did not work. On June 14, 2022, the officer went back to Mr. Parker’s residence. Mr. Parker was not home, but a female who was there gave him Mr. Parker’s cell number. The next transaction was set up in part by text, and in part by phone. Generally, all of the other transactions were set up by a combination of text messages and phone calls.

[19] The text messages show that Mr. Parker was a willing participant in the transactions, and he sometimes initiated the transactions. For instance, the officer texted on June 15, 2022 saying, “I’m looking for jib” (methamphetamine). Mr. Parker responded, “What are you looking at,” and the officer responded, “I can do a half ball” (a ball is 3.5 g). In the subsequent text conversation, Mr. Parker said, “I’ll let you know” and “Let me me work on that” [sic]. Mr. Parker agreed to use the word “pineapple” to refer to fentanyl. On August 6, 2022, Mr. Parker initiated a conversation with Billy by saying, “This week coming up you need.” On August 8, 2022 Mr. Parker said, “If pineapple can happen today is that good for you.” On August 16, 2022 Mr. Parker texted, “Let me know if you need to go shopping this week have a good day.” On September 4, 2022, Mr. Parker texted, “Just planning for up coming week will u be dropping around.”

[20] Mr. Parker also played a significant and clearly willing role in the purchases of fentanyl that Ms. Deacon facilitated on August 11, 2022 and August 24, 2022.

Conclusion

[21] Mr. Parker was a willing participant in all the drug transactions. The police did not go beyond providing Mr. Parker with the opportunity to commit the offences. The police did not induce the offences. There was no entrapment. I therefore dismiss the application.

Chown J.
Released: 2025-03-17