Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CR-24-335 Date: 2025-10-17 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

Between: His Majesty the King and Justin Taillefer, Defendant

Counsel:

• V. Mazza, for the Crown
• J. Dean, for the Defendant

Heard: May 20-22, 26, June 3, 2025

Reasons for Judgment

Justice P.J. Moore

Overview

[1] Justin Taillefer is charged with eleven (11) counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 (the "CDSA"), in relation to various drugs found at his apartment during the execution of a search warrant on January 26, 2023. The drugs included: benzodiazepine, cocaine, codeine, fentanyl, diacetylmorphine (heroin), hydromorphone, amphetamines, methylphenidate, morphine, oxycodone and psilocybin. He was also charged with four (4) offences under the Criminal Code of Canada in relation to a handgun and various ammunition found during the search.

[2] Justin Taillefer testified at trial and admitted to being in possession of some drugs located in the desk and living rooms area of the apartment and his bedroom but denied any knowledge of the vast quantity of drugs located in the second bedroom of the apartment or elsewhere in the apartment and of the loaded firearm.

[3] The main issues at trial were Mr. Taillefer's knowledge of (1) the illicit drugs found in the second bedroom and (2) the loaded gun found under the couch in the living room.

[4] At trial, the parties admitted that Taymoor Pasha was Mr. Taillefer's roommate. Mr. Pasha pled guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in relation to the drugs found in the second bedroom and is awaiting sentencing.

[5] The Crown called several of the search officers and an expert in drug trafficking at trial. It filed a comprehensive agreed statement of fact ("ASF"). It also relied on excerpts from Mr. Taillefer's cell phone seized and analyzed by authorities.

[6] Mr. Taillefer testified in his own defence.

Factual Background

[7] Mr. Taillefer testified that he initially rented the apartment at 609-650 Cheapside Street in London, ON with his former roommate, Greg. Before moving to 609-650 Cheapside Street, Mr. Taillefer lived with Greg in a different apartment.

[8] Greg was terminally ill and died with use of medical assistance at the Cheapside apartment in October 2022.

[9] Mr. Taillefer testified that about eight months after Greg's death, he decided to take on another roommate. Mr. Pasha moved in with him. He knew Mr. Pasha through high school friends. They told him that he was a straight-edged kid with no involvement in drugs. He testified that Mr. Pasha stayed over at the apartment during the week and on weekends, but also lived at his mother's house. Mr. Pasha paid him $700 a month, usually in cash, towards the rent.

[10] Mr. Taillefer worked as a drywaller. He worked nine to ten hours a day and commuted to work. He occasionally worked weekends and sometimes worked out of town in Kitchener/Waterloo, Hamilton, Ottawa and the GTA.

The Search

[11] On January 26, 2023, at 3:09 a.m. the London Police executed a dynamic entry and search warrant at the 609-650 Cheapside Street apartment. On the same day, police executed a search warrant at 403-560 Mornington Avenue and arrested Mr. Pasha. Police seized a cell phone containing evidence of Mr. Pasha's drug dealing. The phone also contained location data placing it at 609-650 Cheapside Street. The police also located keys for the main door of that building.

[12] Multiple witnesses described the apartment on Cheapside Street as a small two-bedroom apartment. Some of the officers described it as cramped and confined. A video of the apartment was played for the court and a diagram of the apartment is part of the ASF. Upon entry, there is a living room to the right and a galley kitchen directly ahead. The galley kitchen leads to a small dining room area with a table and chairs. Next to the dining room is an area set up with a desk and chair facing the rest of the living room.

[13] To the left is a hallway with two bedrooms on the right adjacent to one another, a bathroom and a small laundry room. Mr. Taillefer's bedroom is at the end of the hallway next to the other bedroom door.

[14] Mr. Taillefer was the only occupant at the apartment when the police entered. He was found laying on the floor (as instructed) between the desk area and dining room table.

[15] In the living room, the police located 200 codeine pills and 27 g of psilocybin in Ziplock bags. They were on tables in plain sight. Under the living room couch, police located a loaded Ruger 57 handgun. The gun was loaded with sixteen rounds of 5.7 mm ammunition. The parties agree that the Ruger handgun is a firearm, and that the accused did not possess a license or authorization for a firearm. The officer who located the firearm described it as being shallowly lodged under the couch, such that a person lying on the couch could reach down and touch it. The firearm was not visible until the officer was down on his hands and knees and likely using a flashlight.

[16] In the desk area, at the far end of the living room, police located 674 g of benzodiazepines and 20.4 g of MDMA.

[17] In the dining room, police located 29 g of fentanyl and 7 g of cocaine in separate baggies in a reusable Walmart shopping bag on a chair. They also found a vacuum sealer and vacuum sealer bags on another dining room chair.

[18] In the bedroom at the end of the hallway, which Mr. Taillefer identified as his own, police found 82 heroin pills, some non-scheduled medication, a replica firearm and 84 bullets. The items were located in a safe that was opened with a key, but the witnesses were unsure if it was locked or unlocked when first located. The bullets were not ammunition for the handgun found under the couch. The ASF indicates that Mr. Taillefer told police that the pills and ammunition were left behind by his deceased roommate, Greg, and Mr. Taillefer thought the pills were TEC pills. Authorities tested the pills and found them to be heroin.

[19] In the second bedroom, which the police referred to as the "stash room", the police located $3.2 million of drugs. Those drugs included over 15 kg of fentanyl, over 3 kg of cocaine, over 1 kg of MDMA and thousands of "pharmaceutical" pills. Drugs of the same nature as those found elsewhere in the apartment were also in the stash room including cocaine, fentanyl, codeine pills, MDMA and benzodiazepine. The drugs were in all different forms: bricks, powders, pills and liquids. The drugs were found alongside drug production and drug trafficking paraphernalia with residue on it. The room had a drug press, vacuum bags, packaging, scales, food colouring, frying pans, multiple blenders and 6.5 kg of various cutting agents. These items were not hidden and found throughout the room on tabletops, in totes and on the floor. The ASF contains a full list of all the drugs found. Each of the drugs charged in the indictment was in the stash room or otherwise found in the apartment as described in the ASF.

[20] In addition to the various drugs and related paraphernalia, police located three 9 mm bullets, two 5.7 mm bullets and two extended 9 mm magazines. The stash room also contained $24,845 cash.

[21] The search officers testified that the room consisted of tables, a desk, a chair, totes and a small fridge (with the name "Osama" on it on a piece of tape). There was no bed or dresser in the room. There was no TV and only a few items of clothing found scattered throughout. Some officers testified that there were no clothes in the closet while others said there may have been one or two items. Witnesses testified that the room did not appear to be a lived in space. The authorities identified that the pair of pants, hoodie and satchel located in the room belonged to Mr. Pasha based on prior surveillance of him. There was no personal property of Mr. Taillefer located in the room. The officers testified that the nature of the room as a stash/production room was immediately apparent upon opening the door. Every officer testified that there appeared to be no effort to conceal the drugs or other items within the room. The door was not locked, and officers did not recall seeing any locking mechanism on the door. In addition to the search video, the Crown entered several photos of the apartment into evidence as exhibits.

[22] Police seized two cell phones belonging to Mr. Taillefer. The police could only unlock and analyze one of the cell phones, a Samsung S22. The ownership, authenticity and integrity of the cell phone extraction were admitted as well as the admissibility of the messages retrieved. I will deal with the messages themselves in my analysis.

Legal Principles

Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof

[23] The accused, Mr. Taillefer, is presumed innocent of the charges unless and until the Crown establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a heavy burden on the Crown that never shifts.

[24] Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not equal to proof of probable or likely guilt. It is also not proof to a level of absolute certainty. It requires that I be sure that Mr. Taillefer committed the offences charged. The standard of proof applies to each of the essential elements of the offences, but not to every piece of circumstantial evidence. It requires that I determine if the evidence, as a whole, establishes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

W.(D.) Principles

[25] The accused testified. According to the principles established in R. v. W.(D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, I must first consider whether I believe Mr. Taillefer's evidence that he was unaware of the drugs located in the second bedroom, the gun under the couch and the drugs in the dining room of his apartment and did not know that Mr. Pasha was a drug dealer. If I accept his account, I must find him not guilty of any offence. Secondly, even if I don't accept his account, I must consider if on his account or any of the other evidence, I am left with a reasonable doubt on any of the offences. If so, I must acquit him. Lastly, even if I reject Mr. Taillefer's account and it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt, I must determine on the accepted evidence adduced by the Crown, if I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt on each count.

Section 5(2) of the CDSA: Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking

[26] The essential elements of possession for the purpose of trafficking in s. 5(2) of the CDSA include:

a. The substance was a controlled substance;

b. The accused was in possession of the substance;

c. The accused knew the nature of the substance;

d. The accused possessed the substance for the purpose of trafficking.

[27] In the ASF, the parties agreed to admit date, jurisdiction and identity. They also agreed to admit the nature, quantity, value and continuity of the various drugs. They admitted that the drugs were possessed for the purpose of trafficking and that the sole issue at trial is possession.

Possession

[28] Possession can be proven in three ways: actual/personal possession, joint possession and constructive possession: R. v. Pham (2005), 77 O.R. (3d) 401 (C.A.), at para. 14, aff'd 2006 SCC 26, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 940. Actual possession is where a person is aware that they have actual physical custody and control over the substance. Control means that the person has some power or authority over the substance, whether or not he or she used that power or authority: R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at paras. 137-138; Pham, at para. 25; and R. v. Terrence, [1983] 1 S.C.R. 357.

[29] Two or more persons can be in possession of the same substance – this is called joint possession. When a person has a substance in his or her possession with the knowledge and consent of others, each of them who has some measure of control over the substance has possession of it. This consent must be active, as mere indifference or doing nothing does not constitute consent: R. v. McNeill, 2020 ONCA 313, at para. 62.

Constructive Possession

[30] The Supreme Court of Canada set out the test for constructive possession in R. v. Morelli, at para. 17, as follows:

Constructive possession is established where the accused did not have physical custody of the object in question, but did have it "in the actual possession or custody of another person" or "in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person". Constructive possession is thus complete where the accused: (1) has knowledge of the character of the object, (2) knowingly puts or keeps the object in a particular place, whether or not that place belongs to him, and (3) intends to have the object in the particular place for his "use or benefit" or that of another person. [Citations omitted.]

[31] Occupancy of premises alone does not create a presumption of possession, but it can support an inference of control when coupled with evidence of knowledge: R. v. Faudar, 2021 ONCA 226, at para. 87, R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560, at para. 19. The evidence must tie the accused to the location such that the only reasonable inference is that the accused was aware of the contraband and had control over access to it: Faudar, at para. 87, citing R. v. Lights, 2020 ONCA 129, at paras. 44-48; Pham, at paras. 17-18, 25-29; and R. v. Dipnarine, 2014 ABCA 328, at paras. 17-20.

[32] Constructive possession can be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence or both: R. v. Bains, 2015 ONCA 677, at para. 157, leave to appeal refused, [2015] S.C.C.A. No. 478.

Knowledge

[33] Knowledge is established if the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the nature of the substances. In drug cases, this means knowing the presence of a controlled substance, which can be any controlled substance, not just the controlled substance alleged. It is not a defence that an accused believed a substance to be a different substance than what it turned out to be, if the other substance is also an illegal substance: R. v. Kundeus, [1976] 2 S.C.R. 272, R. v. Williams, 2009 ONCA 342, 95 O.R. (3d) 670, at para. 19.

[34] Knowledge can also be established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of willful blindness or recklessness. Willful blindness requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware of indications about the illegal nature of the substance, but deliberately chose to ignore those indications and not make any inquiry because they did not want to know the truth. Willful blindness is a direct substitute for knowledge: R. v. Pilgrim, 2017 ONCA 309, at paras. 65-66.

[35] Knowledge through recklessness is established if the Crown proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused saw a risk that the substance was illegal but decided to take the risk: R. v. Aiello, [1978] O.J. No. 373, at p. 488, aff'd, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 15, R. v. Sansregret, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 570, at para. 16. The Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Sandhu, held that knowledge for the offence of importing can extend to actual knowledge but not recklessness. The Crown in this case does not seek to prove knowledge through recklessness so I have not considered whether that prong is available or whether it applies.

Circumstantial Evidence

[36] Where the evidence the Crown relies on to prove guilt is wholly or substantially circumstantial, I must be satisfied, having considered the whole of the evidence, that the guilt of Mr. Taillefer is the only reasonable inference: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 35.

Position of the Parties

[37] The Crown submits that there is significant circumstantial evidence supporting Mr. Taillefer's knowledge of the drugs in the second bedroom, in the rest of the apartment and the gun under the couch and his control over them. It relies on the evidence found within the apartment itself, the text messages found on Mr. Taillefer's phone and certain admissions Mr. Taillefer made while testifying. It submits that the only reasonable inference available is that Mr. Taillefer was in possession of the drugs and gun knowing that they were possessed for the purpose of trafficking.

[38] The Defence argues that the accused had no knowledge of the contents of the second bedroom, the drugs in the dining room or the gun. Mr. Taillefer submits that all those drugs and the gun belonged to Mr. Pasha. Mr. Taillefer was not even aware that Mr. Pasha was a drug dealer. The Defence submits that the court should have a reasonable doubt and dismiss the charges relating to the gun and contents of the second bedroom and the drugs found in the dining room.

Analysis

[39] The evidence is clear that Mr. Pasha was the focus of the original police investigation and that he was in possession of the drugs in the second bedroom at 609-650 Cheapside Street for the purposes of trafficking. It is agreed that Mr. Pasha used the nickname "Osama".

[40] There is no real dispute that Mr. Taillefer had a measure of control over the apartment, including the second bedroom in the residence. He leased the apartment. He lived at the apartment full time. He rented the second bedroom to Mr. Pasha. Mr. Pasha had no lease, and Mr. Taillefer had not told his landlord about him. The door to Mr. Pasha's room was not locked when police executed the search warrant. Moreover, there is no evidence of a lock on that door.

[41] The real issues in this case come down to: (1) Mr. Taillefer's knowledge of the contents of the second bedroom, the drugs in the dining room and gun under the couch; (2) Mr. Taillefer's knowledge of Mr. Pasha's drug trafficking activities; and (3) whether Mr. Taillefer was, in addition to Mr. Pasha, in constructive possession of the drugs in the second bedroom, the other drugs found in the apartment and the firearm under the couch.

[42] Mr. Taillefer testified that, after Greg passed away in October 2022, he left the second bedroom of his apartment empty for a period of months. He then decided to rent it out. He knew Mr. Pasha through friends and had met him a couple of times. He knew that Mr. Pasha lived with his mother and thought he just wanted a place to get away. He testified that Mr. Pasha moved into the apartment in June/July 2022. Mr. Pasha would visit the apartment during the week and sleep there on weekends but would also stay at his mother's residence.

[43] He testified that he helped Mr. Pasha move in a futon and that Mr. Pasha bought a desk from Leon's. Until December 2022, the door to Mr. Pasha's bedroom usually remained open. However, it stayed closed after December 2022. Mr. Taillefer testified that he did not know the futon had been removed from the bedroom but agreed that one person could not move it.

[44] Mr. Taillefer testified that he did not know the source of Mr. Pasha's income. He thought that perhaps he had family money. He testified that Mr. Pasha mentioned working at Walmart or Dollarama in the past. However, Mr. Taillefer didn't know if Mr. Pasha had a job while they lived together. He knew that Mr. Pasha was out of town quite a bit in Sarnia and Toronto.

[45] Mr. Taillefer testified that he would occasionally broker drug deals or check prices for concerta and similar ADHD drugs on the dark web. He explained that when someone purchases items on the dark web, they use a form of bitcoin and the money is held in escrow. Once the payment is confirmed, the item is shipped. He testified that he self-medicated and sometimes used Xanax, cocaine, MDMA and psilocybin.

[46] He accepted responsibility for the 37 g of psilocybin found on tables in the living room. He also accepted responsibility for the 674 g of benzodiazepine pills and 20 g of MDMA found on the computer desk along with his cell phones and identification. He testified that he had no recollection of the 200 codeine pills found in a bag on the living room table in plain sight.

[47] He testified that the items found in the safe in his bedroom were his. He said that Greg left them behind.

[48] He denied any knowledge of the 29 g of fentanyl and 7 g of cocaine located in a reusable Walmart bag on the kitchen chair in the dining room. Nearby on another kitchen chair was a vacuum sealer and vacuum sealer bags. He was not asked about these items.

[49] He also denied any knowledge of the loaded handgun "shallowly lodged" under the living room couch. The officer that found the gun testified that anyone sitting on the couch could retrieve the firearm. Mr. Taillefer testified in examination-in-chief that there was no room under the couch as it had no legs. However, he agreed, when played the search video in cross-examination, that there was one or two inches of room under the couch.

[50] Mr. Taillefer testified that he was not in the best frame of mind when he lived with Mr. Pasha. He was self-medicating and in counselling. Greg had been like a father figure to him. He said that Mr. Pasha pulled the wool over his eyes. He thinks that Mr. Pasha saw a soft touch and exploited him because he was "gullible and naïve".

[51] Detective Storozuk was qualified to give evidence in the areas of drug language, prices, methods of operation in the drug trade and miscellaneous indicia of drug trafficking. The Defence did not contest his qualification in these areas or ability to give an expert opinion. Det. Storozuk examined the seized cell phones and provided expert opinion evidence about the messages on them. He testified that the Samsung S22, which the parties agree belongs to Mr. Taillefer, contained communication consistent with drug lingo, prices, and terminology for drug trafficking. He testified that the communications appeared to be regarding a variety of controlled substances including pharmaceuticals, stimulants, and depressants.

[52] Det. Storozuk identified five conversations of interest in his report from the Samsung S22. I shall review each conversation and the evidence Mr. Taillefer gave about the conversation in detail below. I note that Mr. Taillefer is referred to in the following conversations by a variety of usernames, including Device Owner (Jay), justinnnnnn94 (Jay T -owner), JaethePooh (owner) and jaymarco (owner).

Conversation #1 - Device Owner (Jay) and ***5171

[53] On January 20, 2023, a conversation occurred between Jay and person who identifies themself as "Tyrone's wife, Sara". Sara asks Jay to meet up and they agree on a location. Jay asks Sara, "Ok sounds good hm u need" and she responds, "1 g". Det. Storozuk opined that this was a drug transaction for 1 gram of a drug but could not say what drug. He believes that "hm u need" means "how much do you need".

[54] Defence counsel suggested to Det. Storozuk that high-level traffickers would not traffic in such small quantities. However, Det. Storozuk testified that there is no rule of thumb on how high-level traffickers behave although they are less likely to be involved in small quantities.

Conversation #2 – gavrod03 (BABY) and justinnnnnn94 (Jay T - owner)

[55] On January 1, 2024, Gavrod tells Jay that he found someone with lots of "high quality m for 500 Oz" if he is interested in purchasing it. Jay responds by asking, "does it get cheaper if I buy it all" and inquiries about the colour. The conversation continues with Gavrod indicating all the colours and sending a video. Jay responds that, "I don't think 500 a zip is good though lol" and "I don't have a market for it unfor".

[56] Gavrod responds, "Idk ask O if he's interested maybe looks like there's a lot there. He's going to talk to his buddy later and see what he can do for bulk price". Jay responds, " O doesn't deal with middle men, you know that lol" .

[57] The conversation continues, "Ah well could hook him up with this guy if buddy has good prices… I'll let you know what he says later". Jay responds "okok". Gavrod asks, "Hm u tryna pay for Oz or p's of that stuff". Jay responds, "not sure Id have to ask, il llyk tho". Gavrod responds "Ok, he's got 54 Oz total… and a couple of the Peruvian cha cha."

[58] The expert opined that this is a conversation about buying ounces ("oz" or "zip") or kilograms ("p" or "plates") likely in relation to MDMA. He further stated that the substance in the video appears to be MDMA or meth. Collectively, the video, conversation and prices led Det. Storozuk to believe that the substance in question was MDMA. He testified that MDMA and meth can have a similar appearance. However, meth is less commonly colored which is why it is sometimes referred to as "clear" or "ice". He opined that "p" can mean a point or ⅒ of a gram or a plate which is a kilogram. However, given the discussion, he believes it to mean kilograms in this conversation.

[59] Det. Storozuk testified that Jay's reference that "O" doesn't deal with "middlemen" could demonstrate some knowledge or intimacy with O's drug business model.

[60] The Crown relies on this conversation as evidence that Mr. Taillefer knew Mr. Pasha ("O") is a drug trafficker. The Crown also suggests that this is circumstantial evidence that the 1.4 kg of MDMA in the second bedroom of the apartment may have come from this source. It is similar in amount to the 54 ounces (1.5 kg) being offered for sale.

[61] The defence argues that Mr. Taillefer indicates in the conversation that he is not interested in dealing with MDMA as he doesn't have a market for it. Mr. Taillefer agreed in his testimony that "O" was Mr. Pasha. However, he testified that he was simply trying to dismiss Gavrod. He did not, in fact, know that Mr. Pasha was a drug dealer and didn't deal with middlemen. He testified that he assumed that Gavrod knew he had a roommate and was asking if his roommate could potentially know someone of high caliber who could offload the crystals in question. He testified that he and Mr. Pasha never discussed drugs. He said that he had no interaction with Mr. Pasha that would suggest he was involved in drug trafficking. Mr. Taillefer also claimed that Mr. Pasha didn't know he was involved in the dark web. While they would sometimes smoke different strains of marijuana together and had potentially discussed the different drugs they had tried, that was the extent of their knowledge about the other's involvement in the drug subculture.

Conversation #3 - moneysundae (dairy) and justinnnnn94 (Jay T - owner)

[62] On January 23, 2023, a conversation occurred between dairy and Jay T. Dairy asks Jay T if he has "Vyvanse and addy" and "are the percs tecs?" Jay T responds that, "Yee they tecs n I can look for em u know which mg?" Jay T then advises that "Tecs are 10 ea". Dairy asks if they are cheaper in bulk and Jay T responds, "not really lol lmk double check tho" and then a few minutes later "no deals unfortunately". Dairy asks what is "pressed" in them and if it is codeine, to which Jay T responds "Nah they're script".

[63] The conversation continues with dairy asking again about the "vyv and addy" and Jay T responding by asking "would he do concerta or rit…or just those 2". Dairy asks Jay T how much the concerta costs. Jay T responds, "I'm just about to check I'll lyk" and then "20mg XR Addy is 35$ and 30 mg XR 45$ ea… there's Dexedrine for cheaper tho". They continue to discuss the price of Dexedrine and Vyvanse and the minimum quantities of Dexedrine or Adderall that must be ordered for free express post. Dairy says that he will "forsure have to come by and grab 5 yars and I'll let you know what else is decided on" and that he could stop by that week. Jay T tells him that he has also found Biphetin or methylphenidate and 30 x 30 is $250.

[64] The expert opined that this conversation relates to prescription Percocet which is a combination of oxycodone and acetaminophen. "TECS" refers to Teva-Oxycocet which contains 5 mg oxycodone and 325 mg of acetaminophen. "Vyvanse" and "Addy" are Vyvanse and Adderall which are prescribed medications for ADHD. "Concerta" is also an ADHD medication which is a methylphenidate. He opined that 20 x 60 mg of Vyvanse is "1 band" may mean $1,000.

[65] The Crown submits that this conversation, among others, shows that Mr. Taillefer is familiar with pressing pills and traffics in prescription medication. Some of these types of medications discussed were found in the stash room. Mr. Taillefer admitted to trafficking in ADHD medication but submitted that he would buy the drugs on the dark web and resell them. He maintained that this practice was unrelated to the drugs in the second bedroom of the apartment.

Conversation #4 - JaethePooh (owner) and B. Lean

[66] On January 21, 2023, there is a conversation between JaethePooh (owner) and B. Lean in which B. Lean says, "Hey I'm still taking care of your order" and that "I finally have unlimited access to Neo-Codion and Thiocodin". JaethePooh responds that he will look up the second drug and see if there's any interest. He then writes "Makatussin and any pills I'd be interested in! Feel free to make a menu I can forward around to everyone". B. Lean tells him "I have pills though, I do Tramadol, Xanax, Bromozepam, Diazepam, I can get as many as you want" to which Jaethepooh responds "Okok, I'll see what ones are sought after!! Any stimulants like concerta, Ritalin? Adderal type deal". B. Lean indicates that he thinks he can get those but would rather focus on pills that earn a larger profit. He asks JaethePooh if there is any interest in Euphon.

[67] The expert opined that this communication pertains to drug trafficking and availability. It includes discussion of pharmaceutical drugs varying from benzodiazepines (Xanax, Diazepam, Tramadol, Bromazepam) which are common cutting agents for fentanyl to stimulants such as Concerta, Ritalin and Adderall (which are different brand names for medications such as methylphenidate). He told the court that cutting agents are used to bulk up drugs or to change their make-up. In cross-examination, he testified that he didn't know what Neo-Codion, Thiocodin or Makatussin were and didn't do any research to try and find out what they were.

[68] The Crown submits this conversation shows Mr. Taillefer's involvement in the illegal trafficking of prescription drugs. The Defence argues that JaethePooh and B. Lean do not even reach a deal in this conversation. Moreover, even if Mr. Taillefer buys ADHD medication on the dark web and resells it, this does not provide evidence as to his involvement in the other drugs found in the apartment.

Conversation #5 - slicktee and jaymarco (owner)

[69] On January 10, 2023, a conversation occurred between slicktee and jaymarco (owner). Only slicktee's side of the conversation is captured by the phone analysis. There are deleted messages. The contents of the deleted messages are unknown. Slicktee indicates that he needs "5 bars" and then says "thanks brotha" and that "I'll be there in 15 homie".

[70] On January 20, 2023, Slicktee writes that he remembers that jaymarco had said he had "dope prices on yizzy". Slicktee asks "how much for a ball", that he has someone asking who is "down" to pay $280. Slicktee asks "is it nice stuff?" "is it chunk". Slicktee says that "that Molly was insane lol" and "Yoo how much for a Cuban?" Slicktee continues "Bless, is there a good majority of chunk? BI remember last night y'all said you were at the end of the bag".

[71] On January 23, 2023, Slicktee messages jaymarco "my bad brotha the chop ended up flopping" and then asks "oyoyoo could I swing by tomorrow for some bars?" The next message reads, "thanks homie!! Enjoy your night g I'll link ya tomorrow." The next day, Slicktee contacts jaymarco and asks, "S Word brothaa, cool if I come by for 10 bars n a eighth of Kush between 5-6:30ish… I might be able to come sooner if that's cool". Jaymarco responds, "Yaa that should be fine." Slicktee responds at 3:15 p.m. that he could be there in 20 minutes. He says that if jaymarco doesn't have the "lush", he would still take the bars.

[72] The expert opined that this conversation was for the purpose of drug trafficking. He testified that "bars" often refers to Xanax due to its unique 'bar' shape. Det. Storozuk testified that he believed, in the context of the conversation, that "yizzy" refers to cocaine. A "ball" is 3.5 g of a substance. Based on the price of cocaine in 2023, he believes that $280 for 3.5 g (a ball) of "yizzy" would be in reference to cocaine. He testified that his opinion was also based on the reference to a "chunk". He knows chunk to describe the perceived quality of cocaine, as chunks are more likely to come directly from the brick (kilogram). He agreed in cross-examination that neither he nor his colleagues in London had heard the term "yizzy" before. He reached out to a colleague in Toronto drug unit who had heard the term used for cocaine. He agreed that he only reached out to one person and didn't ask for their source of knowledge. He agreed that "chunk" could refer to other drugs such a chunk of hashish. He testified that a "Cuban" is 7 g of a substance, or ¼ of an ounce (28 g). He opined that "how much for a Cuban and if the majority of it was chunk" referred to the black-market purchase of cocaine in this context. He also commented that Kush is slang for marijuana.

[73] The Crown submits that this evidence demonstrates that Mr. Taillefer was a trafficker in cocaine, tying him to the over three kilograms of cocaine located in the second bedroom. The Defence submits that the court should have a doubt as to whether "yizzy" is in fact cocaine. Moreover, the Defence claims that this conversation does not evidence of a drug deal. Mr. Taillefer testified that he "rarely sold cocaine and mostly used it for personal use". He later claimed that he misspoke and that he didn't ever sell cocaine to others at all. He also testified that if he were to buy cocaine, it would be from the dark web where vendors are rated based on a review system for their products.

Other conversations

[74] There are other conversations from the Samsung S22. The Crown asks me to rely on them in finding that Mr. Taillefer had knowledge of the contraband in the apartment and his roommate's activities.

Conversation #6 - Device owner (Jay) and ****3444 (Chris K)

[75] In the conversations, which take place January 17-24, 2023, the two individuals discuss various illegal enterprises. Chris K appears to give Jay advice on how to set up a pharmacy scam and they discuss different proxy servers shut down by the Department of Justice and alternatives. Jay suggests that "gunkit.ca" website looks like a 'honeypot'. They discuss that the RCMP likely uses the website to catch people without a PAL. When discussing how to remain anonymous, Chris suggests buying prepaids cards and drop shipping from the website to a dark net customer. This way, the customer's address would be one on file in the case of a raid. Jay responds, "Truee drop shipping a lot of things from China would be possible too, none of these fucks know where to get cutting agents and there's bare factories for raw chemw. In china."

[76] Chris K also suggests that since Jay does things "IRL" (potentially meaning, in real life), Jay should use two burner phones such as Pixel 4a or something grapheneOS. He recommends installing Signal and using jmp.chat on each, one for sellers and one for buyers. Jay responds, "Yes that's what I have but with a sim under another name". The other phone that was seized and could not be analyzed was a Pixel 4a.

[77] On January 18, 2023, Chris K appears to be coming to visit Jay, as he asks for the buzzer code and apartment number at 9:15 p.m. At 1:48 a.m. on January 19th, Chris K texts, "The trust transfer goes far eh, I really hope he keeps that Gucci bag hidden. I don't wanna have someone kick in a door while I'm over" and at 1:49 a.m. further writes, "I had a good time tonight, we should work on something together".

[78] Det. Storozuk testified that it appears Chris K. is trying to advise Jay on how to set up a pharmacy scheme to get prescriptions or divert pharmaceutical drugs. He testified that "Signal" is an encryption app. He testified that although Jay nor Chris K specify that the cutting agents mentioned in the conversation are for drug manufacturing, that in the context of drop shipping these cutting agents from China and raw chemical, he was of the opinion it was in relation to drug manufacturing.

[79] The Crown submits that this conversation shows Mr. Taillefer's interest in illegal guns, knowledge of obtaining cutting agents and use of applications to conceal involvement. It also suggests that Chris K's comment about hoping "he" will keep the Gucci bag hidden refers to Mr. Pasha keeping something illegal in the apartment.

[80] Mr. Taillefer testified that he only asked about gunkit.ca in relation to his airsoft pistol. He was cross-examined on why he would be worried about police raids if he was only asking about items for an airsoft gun. Mr. Taillefer testified that he was curious about the site. He agreed that the reference to cutting agents from China regarded agents used in drug trafficking. However, he denied any knowledge of the kilograms of cutting agents found in the stash room.

[81] Authorities found Mr. Pasha's Gucci bag in the stash room. Mr. Taillefer testified that he doesn't recall a Gucci bag. He testified that he doesn't know what Chris K was concerned about. He said that he can only assume that Chris K had his own interaction with Mr. Pasha and saw something in the bag. When asked why he didn't do anything in relation to Chris K's comment about something dangerous in the apartment that might cause a raid, he responded, "it was concerning but I guess you don't ask questions you don't want the answer to, in a sense". Later in cross-examination, Mr. Taillefer agreed that he understood the warning as there was something dangerous was in Mr. Pasha's Gucci bag that could get them raided. He testified that he didn't see a Gucci bag so he didn't believe there to be anything he should worry about. He testified that it is not something he would ask questions about or pry over. Specifically, he said, "it was a question I did not want answered at the time " and that "I stuck to my stuff and he stuck to his and that was it." He agreed that he turned a blind eye to something that could have been a real problem. He testified that he wouldn't go and search Mr. Pasha's room. If the bag was in plain sight and Mr. Pasha was there, he may have inquired.

Conversation #7 - Jay (owner) and Trev

[82] On January 20, 2023, a conversation occurred between Jay and Trev. Trev refers to sending Jay messages on Wickr. Wickr is an encrypted messaging app. He asks him to check his messages on Wickr and then asks to stop at Jay's apartment. Jay agrees. On January 21, 2023, Trev asks to visit the apartment again and Jay agrees. On January 24, 2023, Trev asks Jay if he saw his message on Wickr. Jay responds, "Yee I don't think that I have any ush tho". Trev responds that it is alright and then asks if he can "roll now". When Jay agrees, he indicates that he will be there in three minutes.

[83] The Crown submits this is further evidence of Mr. Taillefer dealing drugs and his use of Wickr to do so.

[84] Defence submits that without the other messages, it cannot be known what is being discussed.

Various Conversations

[85] I am not going to recount the other conversations presented at trial in detail.

[86] In brief, one of these conversations occurs on January 22, 2023. Jay is contacted by Rex (**7131). Jay asks him, "Hm u need fam". In another conversation on the same date, River W asks Jay if he knows anyone who likes honey oil/shatter. Jay responds that he will ask around to see if anyone is interested. The following day on January 23, 2023, in a conversation between Zap and Jay T, Zap indicates "he's there". Jay T says "its 189…180$?" and Zap replies "it's 160… or its 170-180 …idk ask hi…He's been there for 20 mins". Jay responds, "kk…Bill spotting a b he talked to u first eh". Zap agrees and Jay T responds "kk bet…Back to the dot eh hah". On January 20, 2023, timchemical sent jaymarco (owner) a list of various pharmaceutical drugs and texted that "its's our hot sales." There is no recovered response from jaymarco. A couple days later, timchemical messaged "We usually via China post. Pack station is ok". This was the only message from that day retrieved and there is no response.

[87] The Crown submits this is further evidence of drug trafficking. The Defence submits that all Mr. Taillefer does is agree to ask around for River W. The other conversations don't indicate if any drug transaction took place or for what amount. If a drug transaction took place, Mr. Taillefer bought drugs. He didn't sell them. With respect to the conversation with timchemical, the defence submits that there isn't even evidence that Mr. Taillefer reviewed the message or responded.

[88] In cross-examination, Det. Storozuk agreed that there was no evidence in the messages retrieved about the phone owner being involved in fentanyl trafficking. There was no reference to the phone owner trafficking large quantities of drugs and that, other than the 'yizzy' reference, there were no other conversations about cocaine. In the yizzy conversation, there are no recovered responses from Mr. Taillefer. In re-examination, Det. Storozuk testified that the lack of evidence of about large deals doesn't mean there were no large deals. Sometimes recovered phones contain evidence of large deals. Sometimes they do not.

[89] I carefully reviewed the phone evidence, Det. Storozuk's opinion on the phone evidence, and Mr. Taillefer's testimony. While the evidence on the phone clearly is indicative of Mr. Taillefer's involvement in drug subculture and trafficking in certain substances, I find most of the messages of little assistance in helping me decide whether he possessed the drugs found at the apartment on January 26, 2023. In many messages, no deals are actually made or the conversations are missing Mr. Taillefer's side of the story. For the conversations where Mr. Taillefer is actively engaged in discussing trafficking ADHD type medication, he testified about his version of events. The messages somewhat support that he obtained medications from the dark web and not from his spare bedroom or Mr. Pasha. The text messages reveal discussions about the minimum quantities required to express post drugs. I cannot find beyond a reasonable doubt that that he sourced any of his drugs from the stash room located in his own apartment.

[90] In a case such as this, I must be very cautious to avoid the danger of general propensity reasoning. I cannot create the following causal chain: since Mr. Taillefer admitted to engaging in drug trafficking in some substances, he is a bad person or the sort of person who traffics drugs, so he is therefore more likely to have committed the alleged offences and is guilty. I specifically cautioned myself against such reasoning in this case. I have not used the evidence of Mr. Taillefer's trafficking in ADHD type drugs to find that he has a general propensity to be a drug trafficker and is therefore more likely to have committed the offences before the court.

[91] However, Mr. Taillefer's in-depth knowledge of drug trafficking is a factor that I may consider when I assess whether Mr. Pasha would be able to run a stash/drug production room under his nose without him being any the wiser. I may also consider anything in the messages that suggests his awareness of Mr. Pasha's activities.

Gun and Ammunition Charges - Counts 12-15

[92] I will first deal with the gun charges involving the loaded handgun found under the living room couch. The gun was hidden from sight. The ammunition in Mr. Taillefer's room did not match the ammunition for the gun. Mr. Taillefer did show an interest in the text messages in 3-D printed guns and concern about legality of gun parts. However, there is nothing in the text messages to indicate that Mr. Taillefer possessed a gun or knew that a gun was located in his apartment. Although guns and drugs are often found together, as those involved in the drug subculture want to protect themselves or their product, I am unable to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taillefer was the person who placed the loaded gun under the couch or had knowledge and control of it. Certainly, the gun is in a living area used by Mr. Taillefer on a regular basis and close to where he was found laying upon police entry and in the area where other drugs were located. However, I have no information regarding how long the gun had been in that location. There is also evidence that another person, such as Mr. Pasha, had access to the living room and could have placed the gun there without Mr. Taillefer's knowledge or consent. I do not find that Mr. Taillefer's inquiries about gunkit.ca convinces me of his knowledge of the firearm. Therefore, I find that the Crown failed to prove its case on Counts 12 and 14 beyond a reasonable doubt.

[93] Next, I will turn to the charge of careless storage of ammunition. Police found a replica firearm and ammunition in Mr. Taillefer's safe in his bedroom. The evidence is unclear whether that safe was locked or unlocked when the officers executed the search warrant. I give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Taillefer. Authorities also found ammunition in the stash room, but I have a doubt as to whether Mr. Taillefer had knowledge of its presence in that room. Therefore, I have a reasonable doubt as to whether Mr. Taillefer stored any ammunition in a careless manner. I find that the Crown failed to prove Count 13 beyond a reasonable doubt.

[94] On the evidence, with respect to possession of prohibited ammunition without a license, it is not clear which ammunition the Crown alleges is prohibited. I heard no evidence about prohibited ammunition. There is nothing in the ASF stating that any of the ammunition is "prohibited". Therefore, I find that the Crown has not proven its case on Count 15 beyond a reasonable doubt.

[95] Mr. Taillefer shall be acquitted on Counts 12-15 relating to a handgun and ammunition.

Drugs found outside stash room within the apartment

[96] The ASF states that "the drugs were possessed for the purposes of trafficking" and "the parties agree that the sole issue in contest is possession proper". It also lists all the drugs found, their locations and the amount. The Defence admitted the nature, quantity, value and continuity of the drugs.

[97] Mr. Taillefer admits to being in possession of the psilocybin (37 g) found in plain sight on a table in the living room. Even without that admission, I would find, in all the circumstances, that Mr. Taillefer possessed that substance. He had both knowledge and control over it.

[98] The defence takes the position that Mr. Taillefer may be found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking of the drugs in the living room and desk area, but only as a user/dealer. Mr. Taillefer testified that he didn't recall the 200 codeine pills located in a Ziplock bag on the table in living room. These pills were in plain view in the same area of other drugs Mr. Taillefer admits to possessing. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taillefer had knowledge and control over all the drugs found in the living room and desk area. Given the admission that Mr. Taillefer possessed the drugs in the apartment for the purposes of trafficking, I find that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt Counts 3 and 11. While codeine (3,425 g, 624 pills) was also found in the stash room, any findings that Mr. Taillefer was also in possession of the codeine found in the stash room would go to penalty. Psilocybin was not found in the stash room.

[99] In Mr. Taillefer's bedroom safe, the police found 82 heroin pills. Mr. Taillefer testified that these pills belonged to Greg and he thought they were TEC. It is irrelevant that he thought they were a different controlled substance than what they tested to be. Regardless of the original source of the pills, which I neither accept nor reject, given the admission above, I find that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taillefer possessed the heroin for the purpose of trafficking. There is no allegation of heroin found in the stash room. I therefore find Mr. Taillefer guilty of Count 9.

[100] On the desk area in the living room, near where authorities arrested Mr. Taillefer and found his identification, the police recovered benzodiazepine (674 g) and MDMA (20.40 g). Mr. Taillefer admitted in his testimony to possession of these drugs. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taillefer possessed these substances. Given the admission that the drugs in the apartment were for the purpose of trafficking, I also find that his possession was for the purpose of trafficking. If I find that Mr. Taillefer was also in possession of the benzodiazepine (47 g) and the MDMA (1,353 g, 51 pills) found in the stash room, that would go to penalty. I therefore find Mr. Taillefer guilty of Counts 1 and 7.

[101] I will deal next with the drugs found in the reusable Walmart bag on an overturned chair in the dining room area, mere steps away from where authorities arrested Mr. Taillefer. The evidence is that the blue reusable Walmart bag contained two plastic baggies: one containing 29 g of purple fentanyl and the other containing 7 g of cocaine. I did not hear evidence that there was anything else in the bag. Mr. Taillefer testified that he was unaware of these drugs. He testified that there were a bunch of Walmart bags in the apartment since Walmart was not far away. He said that if it was not his bag, he had no need to look inside. Clearly, if drugs are found in a grocery bag on the dining room chair where you reside on a full-time basis and within arm's reach of where you are arrested, there is a great deal of suspicion that you would be aware of those items. One might also wonder how Mr. Taillefer could possibly know the difference between his blue reusable Walmart bags and Mr. Pasha's blue reusable Walmart bags. However, having considered his evidence, and the fact that the bag was opaque and could have been left there by Mr. Pasha, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taillefer was aware of those particular drugs in the Walmart bag on that day.

Drugs in the Stash/Production Room

[102] Mr. Taillefer's knowledge of the illegal drugs in second bedroom and his level of control over them are the main issues of concern in this trial. They carry the greatest jeopardy.

[103] Mr. Taillefer's position is that he had no idea that his roommate, Mr. Pasha, converted his bedroom into a stash room/production room. He had no idea that Mr. Pasha trafficked drugs. He testified that Mr. Pasha didn't know that he dealt with drugs on the dark web. Mr. Taillefer testified that he was often away at work and sometimes out of town, including being busy in January 2023. He suggested that any production activities must have occurred when he was away from the apartment.

[104] Defence counsel submits that Mr. Taillefer did not have control over Mr. Pasha's room or Mr. Pasha's actions. Defence counsel points to the fact that police never observed Mr. Taillefer with Mr. Pasha. Additionally, Mr. Taillefer's personal property was not found in the stash room. Moreover, Mr. Taillefer's text messages do not involve fentanyl or cocaine. Instead, he only writes about relatively small amounts of pharmaceutical drugs. Defence counsel strongly argued that even if I do not accept Mr. Taillefer's evidence, I cannot be sure of Mr. Taillefer's knowledge and/or involvement in Mr. Pasha's activities. Thus, they submitted that I must acquit him of the drugs found in the stash room and the gun under the couch.

[105] For the reasons that follow, I reject Mr. Taillefer's evidence about his lack of knowledge. His evidence does not leave me with a reasonable doubt. I am satisfied on the evidence (which I do accept) that he had actual knowledge of Mr. Pasha's operation. Mr. Taillefer knew of the illegal contents in the second room. Alternatively, he was willfully blind as to Mr. Pasha's activities and the contents of the second bedroom. He deliberately failed to make inquiries because he did not want to know about the activities or contents of the room. I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that as the person who leased the apartment and lived there full-time and rented the bedroom, without a lease, to Mr. Pasha, Mr. Taillefer had some measure of control over the 2nd bedroom and could have asked Mr. Pasha to remove the contents of the room or to vacate the apartment entirely.

[106] Mr. Pasha clearly made no efforts to hide his activities within the apartment. There was a loaded gun under the edge of the couch which was hidden from sight but could have easily been discovered by Mr. Taillefer. On the dining room chair laid cocaine and fentanyl in a Walmart grocery bag. A vacuum sealer and extra bags laid on another chair. The door to Mr. Pasha's room was unlocked and no one recalls any form of locking mechanism on the door at all. Based on the officers' evidence and video review of the stash room, I find that anyone catching a glimpse inside the room would know what it was being used for. Mr. Taillefer's evidence provides that Mr. Pasha was also engaged with Chris K. Mr. Pasha potentially showed some illegal items while Mr. Taillefer was present at the apartment, but he may have been busy gaming on his computer.

[107] It does not appear that Mr. Taillefer made any effort to hide his drug related activities from Mr. Pasha. I already detailed the various drugs in the living room and desk area in plain view.

[108] There was no bed in the second bedroom and only a few items of clothing. Mr. Taillefer agreed that he would pass by Mr. Pasha's room multiple times since it was next door to his own. On the evidence, the room was more than a stash room. It was used in drug production: cutting, cooking and pressing. It contained multiple blenders, heating elements, spoons, bowls, food colouring and a drug press. There were several kilograms of cutting agents. These activities would not all be quiet activities.

[109] Mr. Taillefer testified that Mr. Pasha spent time at the apartment and stayed there on weekends. Given the state of the room at the time of the search, there was simply no place for Mr. Pasha to sleep in that room. If he wasn't sleeping, he must have spent his time in the room processing drugs. It is impossible to imagine that he could run blenders and other equipment silently without Mr. Taillefer raising an eyebrow. Mr. Taillefer only worked Monday to Friday and occasionally on the weekend and was also out of town for work at times. There were times that they were at the apartment together.

[110] Mr. Taillefer testified that there was a futon in the bedroom when Mr. Pasha moved in, but it must have been removed sometime without his knowledge, potentially when he was at work. He agreed that it could not be moved by one person. Still, this would not explain where Mr. Pasha slept for weeks or months prior to the raid. The ASF indicates that the police investigation into Mr. Pasha began in 2022. Police observed Mr. Pasha travelling between London and Sarnia. When in London, he travelled to and from the areas of 560 Mornington and 609-650 Cheapside. The ASF does not indicate exactly when the police identified 609-650 Cheapside Street as Mr. Pasha's suspected stash house.

[111] I reject Mr. Taillefer's explanation that he told gavrod03 (BABY) that "O", who he agreed was Mr. Pasha, didn't deal with middlemen just to dismiss him. This makes absolutely no sense if Mr. Pasha was not involved with drug trafficking – as Mr. Taillefer testified. Mr. Taillefer wrote: "O doesn't deal with middle men, you know that lol". This text message suggests that not only is Mr. Taillefer aware that O doesn't deal with middle men, but that Gavrod knows this information too.

[112] I must also consider the improbability of Mr. Pasha, or anyone, leaving $3.2 million of drugs in an unlocked room in the control of someone who could easily discover the drugs at any time and call the police, or discover the drugs/cash and steal them. The Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Bains, 2015 ONCA 677, at para. 157, a case involving an allegation of constructive possession of a kilogram of cocaine found under the seat of a car, found that:

Where the subject matter of which an accused is alleged to be in possession is a controlled substance of significant value, it may be open to a trier of fact to infer not only knowledge of the nature of the subject, but also knowledge of the substance itself. It is a reasonable inference that such a valuable quantity of drugs would not be entrusted to anyone who did not know the nature of the contents of the bag or other container. [Citations omitted.]

[113] Similarly, in R. v. Bryan, 2013 ONCA 97, at paras. 11-13, a quantity of drugs and money was found in the center console and passenger door compartment of a rental car driven by the accused. The defence called a witness who testified that the drugs and money seized by police belonged to him and that he had temporarily loaned his rental car to the accused, who he barely knew, while the drugs and money were in the vehicle. The trial judge convicted the accused. On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario held at para. 11: "[i]n addition to the factors detailed at paragraph 30 of his reasons, the trial judge observed that the quantity and value of the seized drugs made it inconceivable that the drugs would be casually entrusted, by an admitted drug dealer, to someone who did not know what was in the vehicle. We agree."

[114] Where the quantity or value of controlled substances is significant, a reasonable inference may be drawn that such a valuable quantity of drugs would not be entrusted to anyone who was unaware of their nature and presence. This is a reasonable inference that may be drawn, but not one that must be drawn in all cases, particularly where the contraband is well hidden. Ultimately, this one piece of evidence which must be considered together with all the other circumstances. See: R. v. Hang, 2021 ONSC 3166 at para. 157; R. v. Knight, 2019 ONSC 7464; R. v. MacDonald, 2018 ONCJ 706 at para. 26.

[115] In this case, I find that it is inconceivable that Mr. Pasha would entrust $3.2 million worth of drugs in Mr. Taillefer's care yet store them in an unlocked room in Mr. Taillefer's small apartment without Mr. Taillefer's knowledge. On Mr. Taillefer's evidence, the relationship between them before Mr. Pasha moved in was that of a casual acquaintance. If that was the only evidence, it would not be enough as it is not, on its own, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it is one of the factors I considered as part of the Crown's circumstantial case. The Defence suggested that Mr. Pasha would feel safe even without Mr. Taillefer's involvement or awareness of the drugs in the stash room. They suggested that Mr. Pasha knew that Mr. Taillefer would not want police involvement given his own activities. However, Mr. Taillefer testified that he never discussed drugs with Mr. Pasha other than what each of them used before and their use of marijuana. Mr. Pasha was also unaware of Mr. Taillefer's dark web activities. In that case, the "mutually assured destruction" argument does not hold any weight.

[116] The Crown submitted that Mr. Taillefer's culpability lies somewhere along a spectrum: (i) that he knew, was involved and provided space for the offence; (ii) that he knew and provided space for the offence; or (iii) that he was willfully blind and provided space for the offence.

[117] I rejected Mr. Taillefer's evidence that he was completely in the dark about Mr. Pasha's illegal activities and possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. Taillefer described himself as "gullible and naïve". However, I find that on the whole of the evidence, Mr. Taillefer was, in fact, quite intelligent, savvy and well-versed in drug trade. His evidence does also not leave me with a reasonable doubt on the issue of his knowledge of Mr. Pasha's activities and of the presence of the illegal drugs in the stash room.

[118] However, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taillefer was actively involved with Mr. Pasha in the trafficking of the found substances. The law is clear that I must be sure of Mr. Taillefer's knowledge and/or involvement. It is not sufficient if I find that Mr. Taillefer was probably or likely involved. Certainly, there is nothing in the text messages retrieved about fentanyl. There is some discussion about "yizzy" which I find likely refers to cocaine, but that deal fell through and I only have one side of the conversation. There are thousands of pills found in the stash room. Yet in many of his text conversations, Mr. Taillefer refers to minimum orders for express post and in his testimony about brokering deals on the dark web. He testified that when he said he needed to "check with someone", he was checking with vendors on the dark web and not Mr. Pasha. I understand the Crown's position that some of the substances found in the rest of the apartment were the same as the substances found in the stash room. However, given the large amount and varied nature of substances in the stash room, I do not find that the drugs elsewhere in the apartment are necessarily from that source and not from the dark web. Similarly, I agree that it is highly suspicious that there is a discussion about 54 ounces (1.5 kg) of a drug which is likely MDMA and 36 hours later, at the time of the search, 1.4 kg of MDMA is found. However, without more, I cannot find that the only rational inference is that the drugs found at the apartment are the same as those that had been discussed.

[119] Even though I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Taillefer was actively involved in Mr. Pasha's drug trafficking activities, I find beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence establishes that Mr. Taillefer had actual knowledge or was willfully blind that Mr. Pasha was using the second bedroom as a stash/production room for illegal drugs. This knowledge, in combination with his control over the entire apartment (including that bedroom), puts him in constructive possession of the illegal drugs in the stash room. I find that the evidence satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Taillefer's actual knowledge. However, I find in the alternative that Mr. Taillefer was willfully blind in that he was clearly aware of indications that Mr. Pasha was a drug dealer and using his bedroom as a stash/production room and Mr. Taillefer chose to deliberately not make inquiry as he didn't want to know the truth. I find that his position in relation to the Gucci bag of "it was a question I did not want answered at the time" extended to Mr. Pasha's drug trafficking activities. Despite his awareness of circumstances that I find raised his suspicions and which would suggest those inquiries should be made.

[120] In summary, I find that the following evidence satisfies me beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Taillefer's guilt on all the drug counts, including the drugs in the stash/production room:

a. The circumstances of the living quarters including it being a small, cramped apartment with the bedrooms immediately adjacent to one another and Mr. Taillefer living there on a full-time basis.

b. The evidence that Mr. Taillefer was the one who leased the apartment and lived there full-time and had the ability to 'gatekeep' who else lived there.

c. The lack of any bedroom furniture, clothing or any indication that Mr Pasha ever used the second bedroom as a living space. Even if I were to accept Mr. Taillefer's evidence that there was a futon at the beginning, I find that for a significant period of time, there was no futon or bed in that room.

d. The lack of effort by Mr. Pasha to conceal his activities from Mr. Taillefer including leaving a loaded gun under the edge of the couch, fentanyl and cocaine in a Walmart bag in the open in the dining room, leaving a vacuum sealer and extra bags in the dining room and having an immediately recognizable stash/production room behind an unlocked door in combination with Mr. Taillefer's significant knowledge of the world of drug trafficking.

e. The indication by Mr. Taillefer to Gavron that "O" was a person who did not use middlemen when trafficking drugs and his admission that O is Mr. Pasha.

f. The inconceivability of a person leaving $3.2 million in drugs in an unlocked room in the small apartment of someone ignorant of their activities who could easily discover the drugs and steal them or notify the police.

[121] I find that the evidence establishes a constellation of factors, which taken together, support the inference that Mr. Taillefer had knowledge and control over the drugs in the stash room.

[122] Given that this is a circumstantial case, I have considered if there are other reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt and find that Mr. Taillefer's knowledge, actual or willful blindness, of Mr. Pasha's drug trafficking activities and that illegal drugs were being stored in the stash room, is the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the whole of the evidence. As I have outlined, I find Mr. Taillefer had some measure of control over the 2nd bedroom. I therefore find that Mr. Taillefer had both knowledge and control and was in constructive possession of the drugs in that room. It is admitted that the drugs were possessed for the purposes of trafficking.

[123] The Crown is not required to prove that Mr. Taillefer had specific knowledge of each type of substance in the stash room as set out in the indictment, although that may be relevant to sentence. It is sufficient that Mr. Taillefer had knowledge that Mr. Pasha was using the bedroom as a stash room for controlled substances even if he was mistaken as to the specific type of each drug. See: R. v. Islam, 2025 BCSC 161 at para. 68; R. v. Lu, 2021 ONSC 7889 at para. 120.

[124] I therefore find Mr. Taillefer guilty of Counts 2 (Cocaine), 4 (Fentanyl), 6 (Hydromorphone), 8 (Methylphenidate), 9 (Morphine) and 10 (Oxycodone).

Conclusion

[125] In conclusion, I find Mr. Taillefer guilty of Counts 1-11 and not guilty of Counts 12-15.

This written decision is the official decision on this matter.

Justice P.J. Moore

Released: October 17, 2025