CITATION: R. v. Dunn, 2026 ONSC 1368

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-90000479-0000

DATE: 20260309

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

JESSE DUNN

V. Sayed, for the Crown

Y. Eshetu, for Mr. Dunn

1Jesse Dunn stands charged with five counts of possession of schedule I substances (crystal methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl and carfentanil mixture, MDMA, and GHB) for the purposes of trafficking. In addition, he also faces one count of possession of proceeds of crime ($7,125.00 in Canadian dollars).

2The charges arise out of an incident on 12 September 2023 where police officers found the accused on a trail system near Winford Heights Crescent in Toronto.

3During their interactions with Mr. Dunn, police found drugs, cash, and additional drug paraphernalia including baggies and a digital scale. As a result, they arrested and charged him with the offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19, s. 5(2), and the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46.

4Mr. Dunn claims that his rights under s. 8 of the Charter Of Rights and Freedoms were violated when police searched his clothing and knapsack and discovered these items. He seeks exclusion of the evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Evidence

5On 12 September 2022, at approximately 5:23 p.m., police received a 911 call advising that a man had been seen seated on a bench with his head down and his belongings thrown around him on the ground.

6At around the same time, two police officers, Annetts and Dyke, were directed by other members of the public to the same man. The officers had been in the area on patrol investigating an unrelated matter.

7They found Mr. Dunn sitting in the middle of the trail. He was slumped forward and appeared to be asleep. Several items including a knapsack and a mobile phone were strewn on the ground around him.

8The officers woke Mr. Dunn and noted signs of intoxication. He told them that his name was “Jay” and that he lived in the area. When asked about his condition, Mr. Dunn told the officers that he had consumed alcohol and Valium. When they followed up about any potential use of opioids, Mr. Dunn denied using any of these drugs.

9The officers became concerned about Mr. Dunn’s health and welfare and decided to walk him out of the trail system to get him home. At the same time, they turned on their body worn cameras to record all interactions.

10They all walked uphill along the trail. The officers began to notice a deterioration in Mr. Dunn’s behaviour and condition. Mr. Dunn became unsteady on his feet and needed assistance in remaining upright. The officers also observed that Mr. Dunn was falling asleep as he walked.

11They suggested that Mr. Dunn call a friend or a family member and Annetts opened Mr. Dunn’s bag to retrieve his phone. However, Mr. Dunn was unable to use it because of his condition.

12Realising that the situation was worsening, the officers called for an ambulance.

13At approximately 5:52 p.m., Mr. Dunn stopped at a bench and sat down, falling backwards and slipping in and out of consciousness.

14The police officers sought to clarify Mr. Dunn’s identity and asked if he had any identification, asking if he was carrying a wallet.

15Annetts testified that she wanted to have Mr. Dunn’s identification so she could provide it to the emergency services that were due to arrive. She also told Mr. Dunn that they would have to conduct a pat down search to make sure that he did not possess any items which might prove dangerous to the ambulance staff or themselves.

16When they asked for identification Mr. Dunn appeared to move his right hand towards his pocket. The officers took that to mean that his wallet was in his right pocket. When they enquired if Mr. Dunn wanted them to get his wallet for him, Mr. Dunn indicated that he was able to do it. Mr. Dunn then moved his hand into his left pocket and appeared to struggle with its contents. The officers asked him to remove his hand and as he did so, he pulled out a wad of bank notes. The officers asked him what else was in the pocket and reached into it. They found more cash and a plastic bag containing pellets which the officers believed to be prohibited drugs. They arrested Mr. Dunn for possession of controlled substances for the purposes of trafficking.

17When they searched Mr. Dunn’s knapsack, it is agreed that the police found the following:

Crystal methamphetamine: 593.07g
Cocaine: 35.8g
Carfentanil and fentanyl mixture: 10.48g
MDMA: 29.89g
GHB: 389.15g
$7125 in cash

18The police read Mr. Dunn his right to counsel but he did not respond. Eventually, the ambulance and paramedics arrived. Mr. Dunn was placed on a stretcher and taken to hospital.

19Mr. Dunn argues that, by searching his pocket in the manner that they did, the police breached his s. 8 Charter right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. He further argues that all evidence obtained as a result of that search should be excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.

20The Crown opposes this argument and argues there was no breach because the police were acting within their core duties to protect Mr. Dunn in circumstances that gave rise to a medical emergency. The Crown argues that the removal of items from Mr. Dunn’s pocket was not a search for evidence but identification to assist emergency service staff when they arrived.

21This hearing proceeded as a combined motion with the evidence called on the Charter application applying to the trial itself.

22The Crown called Annetts and Dyke, the officers who found and arrested Mr. Dunn. Mr. Dunn testified on his own behalf and told the court that he had no memory of what happened on the trail. The Crown also played the body worn camera footage of both officers as part of its evidence in the Charter application and the trial.

Should the Evidence be Admitted?

23It is arguable that the police interaction here was justified on the basis that they were trying to protect Mr. Dunn in a situation where it was reasonable to believe that his health was seriously endangered. The police are not powerless when trying to ensure the well-being of the public or particular individuals: see, for example: R. v. Wilson, 2025 SCC 32, at paras. 72-75.

24However, for the sake of expediency I am prepared to assume, without deciding, a s. 8 breach, because, in my view, the evidence should be admitted pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.

25In R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353, the Supreme Court of Canada indicated that the test for the admission of whether evidence should be admitted pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter is determined by three factors:

(1) Seriousness of the breach;

(2) Breach of the impact of the Charter-protected interest of the accused; and

(3) Society’s interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

26I deal with each in turn.

The Seriousness of the Breach

27I accept the officers’ evidence that they were genuinely concerned about Mr. Dunn’s physical condition and that their actions were a result of their trying to make sure that he would not suffer serious harm.

28The evidence from their body worn camera shows that they accompanied him on the trail in an effort to get him home safely. The footage shows that the two officers had to hold him upright, at times, to prevent him from falling down. Their worries are reflected in the fact that they ordered an ambulance for him due to Mr. Dunn’s marked deterioration.

29I also accept the officers’ evidence that in dealing with Mr. Dunn they were looking for identification so that Mr. Dunn’s treatment would proceed more smoothly. Mr. Dunn’s movement of hands towards his pockets in response to their requests could reasonably be perceived as a sign that the health card or other identification was in those pockets. It is also noteworthy that Mr. Dunn’s health card was given to the paramedics within moments of their arrival. This provides me with some comfort that the officers were telling the truth when they testified they were not seeking to search for evidence but for an item that would assist Mr. Dunn.

30This was not conduct where the purpose was one of investigation of a potential offence or a search for evidence. I find that the officers were attempting to ensure the welfare and safety of an individual who might have overdosed on drugs.

31The police conduct in this case falls at the very low end of the spectrum and only very weakly favours exclusion.

The Impact on the Charter Protected Interests of the Accused

32The police conduct was also on the lowest end of the second limb of Grant. This was a brief incursion into Mr. Dunn’s pocket to which Mr. Dunn had inserted his hand in response to the officers’ request for identification. I should also note that the police had warned Mr. Dunn that he would be subject to a pat down search in order to ensure police and paramedic safety. In other words, the drugs being held in Mr. Dunn’s pockets would have been discovered at that point.

33This ground also only weakly favours the exclusion of the evidence.

Society’s Interest in the Adjudication on the Merits

34It is clear that society has a strong interest in the adjudication of this case on its merits. This is a serious offence with a significant amount of controlled substances, cash and drugs paraphernalia found in Mr. Dunn’s possession. The evidence is relevant, reliable and critical to the Crown’s case. Exclusion would end the prosecution.

35This ground strongly favours admission of the evidence.

36Balancing all the factors I find that the evidence should be admitted pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Has the Crown Proven its Case Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

37The evidence shows that Mr. Dunn was carrying the drugs, paraphernalia and cash in his knapsack.

38The Crown called Sean Moxham, an expert on the distribution, sale, pricing, quality, methods of use, quantity, preparation, and packaging of fentanyl, MDMA, methamphetamine, cocaine, and NGHB, as well as on practices, habits and sale, methodology and modus operandi relating to possession and trafficking of substances.

39Moxham’s evidence indicated that the amount of drugs and paraphernalia in Mr. Dunn’s possession was not indicative of personal use. He also said that the paraphernalia was more common amongst sellers rather than users. In cross-examination, he said there might be a use for a scale when purchasing drugs to see how much one was buying but that this was not normally common. He also said that in his experience only one mobile phone would be required if selling drugs, and multiple phones were not needed.

40He agreed that it was possible to overdose on both cocaine and fentanyl although the latter would require a smaller amount to be fatal.

41Mr. Dunn testified on his own behalf.

42He said he had been using substances since he was 12 years old. He started using amphetamines and opioids in his late teens. He had been continuing to use these substances up until the incident and had used any substance he could obtain including amphetamines, opiates, MDMA and marihuana. He claimed to be a very heavy user.

43Mr. Dunn admitted having prior drug convictions, having pled guilty to the possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking in 2012 and 2014.

44Mr. Dunn testified to suffering from depression and having attempted to commit suicide on numerous occasions.

45With respect to the events that occurred on 12 September 2022, Mr. Dunn said he had been involved in a fight with his girlfriend and felt alone and isolated. He decided that he was going to commit suicide by overdosing on drugs. Mr. Dunn contacted an acquaintance whom he knew as “Bro” and who lived in the same apartment building two floors above him. Mr. Dunn testified that he had previously bought drugs from Bro.

46Mr. Dunn told Bro that he wanted to buy “a couple of grams of methamphetamine” and asked Bro to meet him at a MacDonalds located at Warden and 401, some 20 minutes’ drive away. This was simply a ruse to get Bro to leave his apartment so that Mr. Dunn could break in and steal the drugs he needed. Once Bro agreed, Mr. Dunn waited for him to leave and then broke into the apartment, kicking the door down with two or three kicks.

47Mr. Dunn testified that he knew the apartment layout because he had been in Bro’s apartment before and the layout was the same as his own which was two floors down.

48After entering, Mr. Dunn went into Bro’s back room to look for drugs. He initially went into the nightstand where he located a large sum of money and a bottle of GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate) which he took with him. He placed the cash in his pocket. Mr. Dunn testified that he needed the money because he wanted to go to a nearby hotel - the Don Valley hotel - to end his life. The money would be used to rent a room there. Once at the hotel, he would consume as many drugs as he could to overdose.

49Mr. Dunn found a satchel with methamphetamine under Bro’s bed and found containers containing other drugs. Mr. Dunn said he took the money out of his pocket and put it into the satchel and continued looking through the room. He found a case containing marihuana and another case containing cocaine and “stuff like that”.

50Mr. Dunn put everything, including the satchel, into a knapsack he had brought with him. When he went to Bro’s apartment he testified that he brought his birth certificate and his identification because he needed those to get a hotel room. He testified that he had also brought a video game system with him.

51Mr. Dunn said he had not intended to put his pieces of identification into the satchel - where they were later found - but believed that they “got caught up with the money” when he moved the money from his pocket. He said he was in the apartment for about 5 minutes.

52Mr. Dunn left the building and said he started to walk towards the Don Valley Hotel. As he made his way down the Don Valley Parkway trail, he took some fentanyl as he was walking. He said he consumed seven grams of fentanyl and some of the GHB. He said he was trying to consume as much as possible.

53He blacked out on the trail and the next thing he remembered was waking up in the hospital, although he said he had some vague recollections about the police on the trail.

54Mr. Dunn maintained that all of the drugs, cash, and paraphernalia came from Bro’s house and that his possession of these drugs was for the sole purpose of committing suicide.

55The defence argues that Mr. Dunn’s account should be believed or at the very least raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt. Mr. Eshetu, on behalf of Mr. Dunn submits that Mr. Dunn’s account explains the drugs and other incriminating items found on him.

56Ms. Sayed, on behalf of the Crown, submits that Mr. Dunn’s account makes no sense and has been manufactured to hide the truth: that he was a drug dealer carrying the drugs he was going to sell and the proceeds of prior sales.

57When assessing Mr. Dunn’s evidence, I find it littered with inconsistencies and matters that make no sense.

58I start by noting that Mr. Dunn was evasive when he testified and when questioned about potential conflicts with his prior testimony, he would seek to attribute the incongruities to memory loss because things had become hazy.

59For example, in his examination in chief, he told the court that he had “smoked a little bit” before he left the apartment building. When cross-examined about why he would do so when he was, in his own words, “eager to leave”, he said that he “may have lit a cigarette”. When pushed about whether he did, in fact, light a cigarette, Mr. Dunn said that “this is all very muddled in my memory”. When questioned further to explain his reference to smoking, Mr. Dunn said, “I don’t even remember saying that but if I did then if I worded it as having a smoke, I probably lit a cigarette”. Then he said may have smoked or it may have been fentanyl. He then blamed his difficulty in remembering on having taken drugs in the apartment.

60Next, I turn to Mr. Dunn’s explanation that the drugs were obtained from the break into Bro’s apartment so that he could overdose at the Don Valley Hotel.

61I start by querying why Mr. Dunn felt the need to go to a hotel to overdose when he could have simply returned to his apartment and taken the drugs there.

62Moreover, Mr. Dunn said that he was able to break in to Bro’s apartment after he had diverted Bro to a more distant location. However, it makes very little sense that Bro would agree to meet at a distance 20-30 minutes away when he only lived two floors up from Mr. Dunn. Why would Bro simply not tell Mr. Dunn to come and see him when he returned? After all, in cross-examination, Mr. Dunn testified that when arranging to meet Bro he had told him that he was at home.

63Then there are the contents of Mr. Dunn’s knapsack. Mr. Dunn’s explanation for taking the knapsack was that he needed something to carry the drugs that he was going to steal from Bro’s apartment. However, the knapsack contained his own personal items and not just the drugs and paraphernalia that he said he stole from Bro. For example, the bag contained a book on glass blowing and a video game system. Nor could Mr. Dunn explain why, on a mission to commit suicide, he had taken his headphones with him.

64Mr. Dunn said that he grabbed the bag before he left and he thought it was empty. However, it makes no sense for Mr. Dunn to take a larger bag and not check the contents. He said he believed it was empty but his game system and book would have added some weight. The clear implication is that he had not taken the bag to carry any drugs he found in Bro’s apartment but had been using it to carry his personal items whilst walking on the trail.

65Nor is it clear why he needed a knapsack if he was only breaking in to Bro’s apartment to get drugs to overdose. When cross-examined by the Crown he said he had not put much thought into how many drugs he was going to take. However, when asked about the fact that the bag he took conveniently fit all of the drugs that were inside, he changed his evidence.

66The exchange proceeded as follows:

Q. Okay. Was your intention to take just enough to harm yourself or to take everything he had, going in there?

A. I hadn’t put that much thought into it.

Q. Okay. You hadn’t put that much thought into it. So, it just so happened that you had a bag that perfectly fit all of the drugs you took out with you?

A. I wouldn’t say perfectly fit.

Q. Okay. That just so happened to be the case though, that the drugs you took fit into the bag you had?

A. Well, that’s why I grabbed the biggest - like a big - a large knapsack, just in case.

Q. That’s why you grabbed the --

A. Large knapsack.

Q. Just in case of what?

A. Like I said, I really hadn’t put that much thought into it. I just grabbed the knapsack that I saw there.

67When pressed again the Crown asked:

Q. You said just in case, so I would like to explore what those words mean to you, just in case of what?

A. In case I needed more - I needed something that was large enough.

Q. In your mind, did you think you would need a knapsack of that size?

A. I had no idea at that time.

68The cross-examination concluded with the following exchange:

Q. You knew that taking a knapsack of that size was far more than you needed to accomplish the goal that you had in mind that day?

A. No, I did not because I was not thinking of that at that point.

Q. You were just not thinking of that?

A. No, I told you, I was distraught, I was in panic and I was just trying to think how to get the drugs to kill myself.

Q. Ok.

69First, there was no thought, then there was a thought to grab the largest knapsack “just in case” and then there was no thought again.

70Mr. Dunn said he did not know if anyone was in the apartment when he broke in taking only “two or three kicks” to get inside. Again, this makes little sense. If the plan was to enter the apartment and steal Bro’s large quantity of drugs, why would Mr. Dunn not be concerned about anyone being present in the apartment? His explanation was that when he had been there previously Bro had not had anyone in the apartment. However, a drug dealer with significant amounts of cash may well have had others present. It makes no sense that Mr. Dunn would simply assume without any concern - and make no effort to check - that no one else would be there before kicking down the door.

71Nor does Mr. Dunn’s account of his conversation with Bro make sense. When he was cross-examined about the conversation with Bro, Mr. Dunn said that he did not discuss the price of the drugs. He explained that he knew what the prices were so there was no need to ask Bro. However, when asked what the prices were Mr. Dunn said that he did not know.

72When asked about the amount of money found in his knapsack, Mr. Dunn said he took the cash to rent a room at the Don Valley Hotel where he would take an overdose of drugs. As I have already said, it is unclear to me why Mr. Dunn would want to go to a hotel when he could have overdosed in his own apartment two floors down. It is equally unclear why he would take such a large quantity of money - totalling over $7000 - when all he needed was payment for one room.

73Moreover, this money was split between his pockets and the satchel in the knapsack which would contradict Mr. Dunn’s version of events and suggest that this was Mr. Dunn’s own money.

74Mr. Dunn explained that when he initially found the money, he put it into his pocket but after finding the satchel he transferred the funds there. When asked why he had moved the money into the satchel, Mr. Dunn replied that he did not want that much money in his pocket. However, he could not explain why he was comfortable with it in the knapsack instead. When it was pointed out that there was additional money in his pocket, Mr. Dunn responded that there was “only $5-10” there. In fact, the evidence shows that Mr. Dunn had approximately $500 in his pocket. When this was put to him, he said that he must have “missed some of it”.

75This is an absurd explanation. I find that the money had not been “split” but was Mr. Dunn’s own money, some of which he had originally placed in the knapsack and the other part left in his pocket.

76This leads into the issue with Mr. Dunn’s identification being found in the satchel. Mr. Dunn said that he had brought identification with him because the hotel would require it before they gave him a room. However, he said he placed his identification was in his pocket.

77Why, then, was it found in Bro’s satchel?

78Mr. Dunn testified that the identification was originally in his pocket and must have, unbeknownst to him, become intertwined in the cash that he transferred into the satchel. However, his account is contradicted by the body worn camera footage which shows that the identification is not mixed in with the money but separate and apart from it. I take the same view that the birth certificate, whilst in the same area as the money, is not wrapped up or intertwined in any way.

79I find that the identification was never in Mr. Dunn’s pockets but inside the satchel from the beginning.

80I find that Mr. Dunn did not find the cash at Bro’s apartment: it belonged to him and was in his own satchel within the knapsack. He did not move the money from his pocket to the satchel - it was already there as was his birth certificate and health card. This is because the satchel, knapsack, and all of the contents belonged to him.

81Moreover, Mr. Dunn said that he left his apartment building to go to the Don Valley Hotel which is located north of his building. It is unclear why he decided to walk there when he could have hailed a taxi or called for an Uber ride. When questioned on this point he said he did not take a cab or Uber to the hotel, because he did not want to have to wait 10 minutes for the ride to arrive. However, he then said he was willing to walk for 30 minutes to get to the hotel.

82Finally, although Mr. Dunn sought to explain his presence on the trail by claiming he was walking to the Don Valley Hotel, the route he took was completely opposite to the route that would have taken him to the hotel which was north of his building: he was discovered south of his building. In other words, he would, if telling the truth, have walked in the opposite direction to the hotel.

83I find Mr. Dunn’s account to be uncredible and manufactured to explain why he was carrying the drugs, cash and paraphernalia with which he was found.

84I do not believe his evidence and it does not leave me with a reasonable doubt.

85With respect to the rest of the evidence I do accept there is no dispute that the Crystal methamphetamine: 593.07g; Cocaine: 35.8g; Carfentanil and fentanyl mixture: 10.48g; MDMA: 29.89g; and GHB: 389.15g, were found in the knapsack that belonged to Mr. Dunn. These accompanied the $7125 in cash, multiple zip lock baggies and a digital scale.

86I accept Sean Moxham’s evidence that the amount of drugs was not consistent with personal use. I find that the paraphernalia - the scales and baggies - are consistent with items used for drug trafficking as per Moxham’s evidence. I also find that the large amount of cash was not stolen from Bro by Mr. Dunn but was his own - the proceeds of his sales of drugs made previously to his discovery by the police.

87For these reasons I find Mr. Dunn guilty of all counts.

S.A.Q. Akhtar J.

Released: 9 March 2026