R. v. LaRose and Harris-Griffiths, 2026 ONSC 1747

CITATION: R. v. LaRose and Harris-Griffiths, 2026 ONSC 1747

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-0218 CR-24-0220

DATE: 20260323

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

DEJAUNTE LAROSE and DANIEL HARRIS-GRIFFITHS

Defendants

T. Ormond, for the Crown

C. Szpulak, for the Defendant LaRose A. O’Brodovich, for the Defendant Harris-Griffiths

HEARD: December 5, 8, 9, 11, & 16, 2025

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Justice mills

1The defendants are jointly accused of unlawfully possessing Fentanyl and p-Fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking. Mr. LaRose is charged with possessing brass knuckles, a prohibited weapon, without a licence. Mr. LaRose is also charged with failing to comply with a condition of a prior release order. Both defendants pled not guilty to all offences. At the Crown’s request, an acquittal was entered on the charge that Mr. Harris-Griffiths failed to comply with a release order.

2This is a circumstantial case where possession of the drugs is the sole issue to be determined. The defence concede that the quantity of drugs found can only be for the purpose of trafficking. The expert opinion evidence places the value of the drugs to be between $25,200 and $58,800, depending on the quantity sold per transaction.

3The primary question to be answered is whether, based on all the evidence and a totality of the facts,¹ either or both defendants were in actual and/or constructive possession of the drugs found at 804 – 2240 Weston Road on July 28, 2023?

Legal Background

4The essential elements of possession are knowledge and control. To establish the offence of possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused had knowledge and control of the illegal substance. Possession includes personal possession, constructive possession and joint possession. ²

5“Knowledge” and/or “control” may be determined having regard to several different considerations. In R. v. Kofman,³ Leach J. outlined a non-exclusive list of considerations which may assist in ascertaining if a person has knowledge and/or control of an item. They include:

a. The existence or absence of any direct evidence of an accused’s knowledge of an item.

b. Whether the accused or someone else owned, rented or otherwise retained control over the premises where the item was found, and if so, whether the accused did so alone or jointly with others.

c. Whether government registries or other documents indicate the place is the residence of the accused or others.

d. Whether the accused exercised or demonstrably had any physical control over access to the place.

e. Whether the accused was in apparent control of a particular room or space where an object was found.

f. Whether the accused was observed in the premises or area where an object was found.

g. The extent to which other persons frequented or had access to the premises.

h. The physical proximity of the accused to the object and the extent to which it was readily accessible to the accused, or if it was concealed or hidden from view.

i. The extent to which other evidence indicates the accused was actively aware of and participated in illicit activities at the premises that would involve such an object or item.

j. Whether the object was in plain view in a common area of the premises such that it could not reasonably be overlooked. The size of the premises in which the object was located will have a bearing on the extent to which the object was readily visible and likely to be noticed.

k. Whether the item was left in a location where others were likely to have encountered or discovered the item.

l. If the item is of significant value because, as a matter of common sense and human experience, it is unlikely that someone would leave it unattended or in the control of someone unaware of its presence or value.

m. If there is evidence to indicate how long the object was in the location where it was discovered.

n. If the accused behaved in a manner suggesting an awareness that something unlawful was present in a location.

o. Whether there is any forensic evidence linking the accused with the object.

6Constructive possession may be established by direct and/or circumstantial evidence that shows the accused had knowledge of the item, had intent or consent to possess the item, and had some measure of control over the location of the item.⁴

7When relying on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, it must be the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the totality of the evidence and the lack of evidence.⁵ Therefore, to justify a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, it must exclude any other reasonable alternative inference, when assessed in the light of human experience.⁶ The circumstantial evidence need not exclude all other possible or conceivable alternative inferences, only other reasonable inferences. When engaging in this analysis, it is important to consider the totality of the evidence rather than examining individual items of evidence on a piecemeal basis.⁷

8Where the item is a substantial quantity of drugs, it is a reasonable inference that something of such significant value would not be entrusted to anyone who did not know the nature of the bag or container.⁸ This is particularly so when there is no other exculpatory explanation. However, this inference is permissive and may not be reasonable or appropriate where the drugs are well hidden.⁹

9To establish joint possession, the Crown is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that multiple people were in possession or custody of the item. Section 4(3)(b) of the Criminal Code provides that where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the others, has anything in their custody or possession, it shall be deemed to be in the custody and possession of each and all of them.

10For joint possession, there must be knowledge of the item, consent of the person for the item to remain in place after coming to know about it, and a measure of control over the item by the person deemed to be in possession.¹⁰ Consent must be active and more than just indifference or passive acquiescence.¹¹ Simply being found in a location where the item is found will not automatically infer knowledge of the item, particularly if it is well hidden. The visibility of the item and the connection of the accused to the location will be factors influencing an inference of knowledge.¹² Equally, simply being one person found to be residing in a place with others is not enough to establish control.¹³

Factual Background

11Having observed what they believed to be a suspicious drug trafficking interaction late at night in the parking lot of a gas station, the Halton Regional Police Service (“HRPS”) initiated an investigation and conducted surveillance on Joshua Palmer Foster. As Mr. LaRose was known to be an associate of Mr. Palmer Foster, he was then made a secondary target of the investigation. At the time, Mr. LaRose was released on bail with Mr. Palmer Foster being his surety. There is no evidence that Mr. LaRose was implicated in any drug trafficking transactions.

12Under the leadership of Detective Constable (“DC”) Betik, the HRPS intermittently engaged in surveillance of Mr. Palmer Foster and Mr. LaRose over the course of sixty-five days between May 25, 2023 and July 28, 2023.

13On June 6, 2023, an individual who DC Betik believed to be Mr. LaRose was seen carrying a laptop bag and walking a dog on Weston Rd. DC Hansen was also engaged in the surveillance on that day and he confirmed the individual resembled the photo he had seen before of Mr. LaRose. DC Hansen testified he saw Mr. LaRose leave 2190 Weston Road with a dog on a leash and walk towards 2240 Weston Road. He then turned up the driveway, but DC Hansen did not see if Mr. LaRose entered the building.

14A production order was obtained which permitted DC Betik to review the 2240 Weston Rd. fob data and the CCTV recordings for the period of June 23, 24 and 26, 2023. An individual believed to be Mr. LaRose is seen entering and exiting the building, using the fob which was found to be registered in the name of “Daniel 804”. This individual was wearing the same sweatpants as was previously seen on the individual walking the dog on Weston Rd. The CCTV recording shows the individual exiting the elevator on the 8th floor of 2240 Weston Rd. and walking directly across the hall to what is known to be Unit 804.

15I am satisfied from the photographic and CCTV evidence that the individual walking on Weston Road and shown in the CCTV videos of June 24, 2023, was in fact Mr. LaRose.¹⁴ Over the course of the trial, I had several opportunities to look directly at Mr. LaRose. Even though he was shown in the videos to be wearing a black hoodie covering his hair, the height and facial resemblance to the individual shown in the photos and the CCTV videos is striking and definitive, particularly in the photos where he is walking the dog. I have considered the issues associated with cross-racial identification¹⁵, and I am nonetheless certain the individual is the same in both these photos and the CCTV evidence. I am certain that the individual is Mr. LaRose.

16While conducting surveillance, DC Betik took several photos of a black male individual at the door to the balcony of 804-2240 Weston Rd. At the time, DC Betik was unaware of the identity of the individual but later determined it was Mr. Harris-Griffiths. DC Betik also photographed a black male individual on the balcony, which he identified as Mr. LaRose. On another occasion, DC Betik photographed a black male in the parking garage of 2240 Weston Road who he identified as Mr. LaRose.

17When considered fairly and objectively, I cannot be certain the two individuals shown at the door to the balcony and stepping out on the balcony are in fact Mr. Harris-Griffiths and/or Mr. LaRose. They are indeed two black males, but there are no discernible facial features shown to confirm their identity. The photos are taken from a distance using a telephoto lens. Understandably, the photos are grainy, and the images are somewhat blurred. The Crown relies on the clothing worn to confirm the identity of the individuals. I do not accept that this photographic evidence is of sufficiently good quality, nor does it present a clear picture of the individuals to permit a convincing determination of identity. So too for the photo taken in the parking garage. It is blurry, taken from a distance, and it is impossible to identify the individual as he has his back to the camera. I am not persuaded it is a photo of Mr. LaRose.

18During this period of surveillance, DC Betik photographed Mr. Harris-Griffiths driving a white Acura which is registered to a numbered company. This vehicle was seen in the secure underground parking lot in the spot allocated to 804-2240 Weston Rd., at a gas station, and at a grocery store parking lot. Having seen him every day at trial, I am certain the individual photographed approaching and then entering the vehicle was in fact Mr. Harris-Griffiths.

19DC Betik also testified he saw Mr. Palmer Foster entering and exiting the building on several occasions during the period when he was the subject of surveillance by HRPS. Having never seen Mr. Palmer Foster, I am unable to ascertain if the individual was in fact Mr. Palmer Foster, but I equally have no reason to disbelieve DC Betik on this issue. There is no evidence before me to indicate why this is relevant other than that Mr. Palmer Foster was being investigated for engaging in drug trafficking. There is no evidence to link him to unit 804. He could have been attending at any of the many other units in the building.

20On the strength of an Information To Obtain sworn by DC Betik, search warrants were issued for 804-2240 Weston Road and 403-2190 Weston Road, the former believed to be the residence of Mr. LaRose and the latter the residence of Mr. Palmer Foster.

21The search warrants were executed on July 28, 2023, with Mr. Palmer Foster being the primary subject and Mr. LaRose the secondary subject.

22With the assistance of the Emergency Task Force of the Toronto Police Service, 804-2240 Weston Rd. was breached at 6:01 a.m. with the use of a battering ram to open the door and the deployment of a distraction device to stun any occupants of the unit. Mr. LaRose was found to have been sleeping on the sofa in the living room. He was ordered to the ground, and he complied with all instructions given by police. He was handcuffed and removed from the unit. Once it was confirmed there were no other occupants and the unit was secure, the HRPS took over the investigation.

23An entry video was taken prior to the search being conducted to document the state of the unit when police arrived. An exit video was taken to document the state of the unit when the police concluded their search. Photos were taken of items believed to be of evidentiary value. The items were then placed in a property bag and seized. Continuity of the items seized is admitted.

24A Summary of Evidence Collection Report was generated to document all items seized by police. Included in the Report were several small plastic bags containing a green rocky substance, a purple rocky substance, a white crystallized substance, a white powder substance, a beige powder substance, and a light orange/pink powder substance. The substances were all believed to be illicit drugs. Also seized were a digital scale, a measuring cup with a spoon, a piece of paper with handwritten phone numbers and email addresses, and a quantity of cash in different currencies secured in a small safe disguised to be a dictionary. The book safe was found inside a gym bag, located underneath the bed. In the kitchen, HRPS found two empty bottles of Hydrocodone, a controlled drug, without evidence of a valid prescription to either accused.

25It is admitted that when tested by Health Canada, the seized substances were found to be fentanyl, p-Fluorofentanyl, methamphetamine, and MDMA. These items were located in a blue reusable shopping bag inside a black backpack which was found hanging on the back of the bedroom door beside bath towels, and in a grey plastic bag at the back left corner of the bathroom cabinet. It is acknowledged by the HRPS witnesses that the drugs were not in plain view. The digital scale, measuring cup and spoon were also located in the bathroom cabinet. The piece of paper with phone numbers and email addresses was found in the black backpack with the drugs.

26A set of brass knuckles were located in a laptop bag on a shelf in the closet to the left of the front door. The surveillance photos taken of Mr. LaRose walking the dog, show him to be carrying an identical laptop bag.

27Also seized from various locations in the unit were correspondence and identification cards in the name of Mr. Harris-Griffiths. There were no items found anywhere in the unit bearing the name of Mr. LaRose. There were however, two cellphones in the living room on the sofa where he was found to have been sleeping. Those cellphones were seized by HRPS.

28Following the search warrant execution, when it was determined that Mr. Harris-Griffiths was a co-tenant of 804-2240 Weston Rd., a warrant was issued for his arrest. He was eventually arrested on December 19, 2023. At the time, he was driving the same white Acura motor vehicle in which he was seen during the July 2023 surveillance. He was seen to have dropped two cellphones immediately prior to being arrested. Mr. Harris-Griffiths does not admit they are his cellphones.

29The cellphones found with Mr. LaRose and those found with Mr. Harris-Griffiths were analyzed by HRPS technical officers and an extraction of the data on the phones was performed. Mr. LaRose does not dispute the cellphones found with him belong to him.

30The call logs, text messages, photos, videos, social media user accounts, and a document storage site username all overwhelmingly point to Mr. Harris-Griffiths as the owner of the cellphones found at the time of his arrest. Several usernames are associated with Mr. Harris-Griffiths’ email address. There are selfie style photos of an individual who appears to be Mr. Harris-Griffiths and photos of documents bearing the name of Mr. Harris-Griffiths. There is a photo of a Hydrocodone bottle identical to one found in the kitchen by HRPS. There are videos, one of which was taken of 804-2240 Weston Rd. following the execution of the search warrant documenting the state in which the unit was left by HRPS. A very brief mirror reflection of Mr. Harris-Griffiths appears in the video. Text messages were sent on July 28 and July 29, 2023, which say variations of “my crib got raided”. One text message states, “Holy they took my bread …”. Another said, “they took our brother … hes screwed”.

31I am satisfied from the evidence that the cellphones found at the time of his arrest belong to Mr. Harris-Griffiths. He was seen to have dropped them when confronted by police and the contents of the cellphones confirm he is the owner and the user. There is no evidence to suggest the cellphones belong to anyone other than Mr. Harris-Griffiths. The data extracted from these cellphones is admissible for the truth of its contents.

32The cellphone records indicate that Mr. LaRose and Mr. Harris-Griffiths exchanged 65 text messages over a one-month period, between June and July 2023. This confirms they had a close relationship. There is no evidence as to the nature of the communications.

33The expert opinion evidence of DC Richards regarding drug characteristics, pricing, terminology, and indicia of trafficking was not substantively contested. The opinion report regarding the weight of the drugs found (amended to determine the weight without packaging), was not challenged. The report was admitted into evidence for the truth of its contents.

34The report confirmed that 294 grams of fentanyl were seized from 804-2240 Weston Road at the time of the search warrant execution.

35DC Richards testified that fentanyl can be found in powder or rock form, often with another powder used as a cutting agent. Less typically, fentanyl may be found in pill form. The fentanyl seized was largely in rock form and of a similar green colour. A smaller amount of fentanyl was in a beige powder form. In addition to the fentanyl, 139.7 grams of caffeine and 129.5 grams of an unknown substance were seized. In the expert opinion of DC Richards, caffeine is a common cutting agent for fentanyl.

Analysis

36There is no direct evidence definitively connecting Mr. LaRose or Mr. Harris-Griffiths to the drugs found at 804-2240 Weston Road. The Crown relies on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, to find either or both accused guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, guilt must be the only reasonable inference to be reached from the evidence and the lack of evidence.

37It is admitted that Mr. Harris-Griffiths was a tenant named on the lease to 804-2240 Weston Road together with Tuala Veta. The suggestion by Mr. Harris-Griffiths’ counsel that the drugs were owned by Ms. Veta, is entirely speculative and not supported by any evidence. The HRPS found nothing in their search to indicate that Ms. Veta was residing in the unit. The suggestion that Mr. Harris-Griffiths may have sublet the unit to someone else is also entirely speculative without any evidence to support the suggestion. These are both questions that could have been answered by Mr. Harris-Griffiths, but he elected not to testify, as is his right. These speculations of the defence do not assist in evaluating the evidence and they do not raise a reasonable doubt with respect to the Crown’s evidence that is before the Court.¹⁶

38The HRPS officers all testified in a forthright manner, and their credibility was not shaken on cross-examination. I accept their evidence and find that it is reliable. They did not embellish, nor did they stray from the contemporaneous notes taken at the time of the surveillance, when the search warrant was executed, and following the seizure of the illegal substances.

39There was much evidence to support that Mr. Harris-Griffiths was the principal resident of 804-2240 Weston Road. Personal identification and mail in his name were found in the only bedroom of the unit. The vehicle he was seen to be driving was parked in the underground garage in a space allocated to unit 804. The building and the garage were accessed by a key fob registered to “Daniel 804”. A temporary government issued driver’s license in the name of Mr. Harris-Griffiths has 804-2240 Weston Road as his home address. The documents located in the unit indicating a different address for Mr. Harris-Griffiths were all outdated.

40There is no evidence of a sub-lease nor of an assignment of the lease to anyone else.

41I am satisfied from the evidence and the lack of evidence that Mr. Harris-Griffiths was a resident of 804-2240 Weston Road. Over the course of several days, he was seen in police surveillance and on CCTV video entering and exiting the building. He used the fob registered to the unit to access the building and the parking garage.

42The CCTV videos confirmed Mr. LaRose also used the fob to enter the building. On the video, he was seen carrying a large keyring which was not found with him when arrested or in the unit when it was searched by HRPS. It is a reasonable inference that the keys belong to Mr. Harris-Griffiths, the lawful tenant of the unit.

43Mr. Harris-Griffiths was the legal tenant of the unit, but he granted open access to Mr. LaRose. Mr. LaRose appeared to be free to come and go as he pleased. On July 28, 2023, Mr. LaRose was a clearly an occupant of the unit. It is less clear whether he was a resident of the unit. The exit video taken by HRPS after the execution of the warrant shows two bags with clothing in the living room area, beside the sofa on which Mr. La Rose was found to be sleeping. It is a reasonable inference that these clothes may belong to him.

44The drugs were found in a reusable grocery bag inside a black backpack which was hung on the back of the bedroom door, and in a grey plastic bag at the back of the bathroom cabinet. It is undisputed that none of the drugs were in plain view although they were not particularly well hidden. The piece of paper with a listing of phone numbers was also found in the backpack. The phone numbers correspond to numbers found on the cellphones owned by Mr. Harris-Griffiths and the email addresses are associated with Mr. Harris-Griffiths. This evidence directly links the backpack to Mr. Harris-Griffiths. I am satisfied that the backpack in fact belonged to Mr. Harris-Griffiths, and I infer that he was therefore aware of its contents. It is a reasonable inference to make in the circumstances.

45It is conceded that the quantity of illegal drugs seized can only be for the purpose of trafficking. The drug trafficking expert, DC Richards, testified that the drug trade is conducted in cash and that a large amount of bundled cash is an indicium of drug trafficking. Bundled cash in different currencies was found hidden in a “dictionary safe” inside a gym bag which had been placed under the bed in the bedroom. After the execution of the search warrant, Mr. Harris-Griffiths texted that his “bread” (money) had been taken. Considering the lengths taken to hide the currency, this is further circumstantial evidence for which the only reasonable inference is that Mr. Harris-Griffiths was aware of the drugs found in the unit and that he was engaged in drug trafficking.

46There was nothing found in the bedroom to connect Mr. LaRose to the room, although he had easy access to all rooms. None of the interior doors to the unit were locked for privacy.

47The drugs in the bathroom were found in a bag at the back left corner of the cabinet, behind various personal care and cleaning products. The cutting agents were found in the same place. In immediate view when the cabinet doors were opened was a measuring cup and spoon. Digital scales were hidden inside the facing of the cabinet. The fentanyl found in the backpack contained the same cutting agent as was located in the bathroom. This evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion that the drugs were being mixed and stored in the bathroom.

48It is a fair comment to say that anyone who had access to the unit may have used the bathroom. It is not reasonable to suggest that anyone other than a resident of the unit would have stored drugs and drug making paraphernalia in the bathroom cabinet.

49Over an approximate 30-minute period on July 24, 2023, Mr. LaRose was seen on the CCTV video using a fob to enter the building, riding the elevator to the eighth floor, and then approaching the door to unit 804. There is no other evidence to connect him to the unit prior to the date of the warrant execution. There is nothing to support the inference that Mr. LaRose resided in the unit on a full-time or even on a temporary basis. The search revealed no documents in his name, and nothing to show that he resided in the unit.

50The unit is a relatively small one-bedroom, one-bathroom, open concept apartment. The drugs were out of immediate view, but they were easily accessible in both the bedroom and the bathroom. They would have been deliberately placed in the backpack and at the back of the bathroom cupboard, although it is unknown when that occurred or by whom. Mr. Harris-Griffiths can, however, be directly connected to the drugs by the backpack.

51The backpack was hung on a hook on the back of the bedroom door beside some bath towels. If the door was open or closed, the backpack would not have been in plain view. The drugs in the bathroom were at the very back corner of the cabinet in a plastic grocery bag. They too were not in plain view.

52Mr. LaRose was the only person found in the unit at 6:00 a.m. when the search warrant was executed, demonstrating that he exercised control over the unit at that particular time. He was not a “found in” who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. However, he was found to be sleeping on the sofa, not in the only bedroom. He was evidently left to protect the premises and to care for the pit bull dogs that were found in the unit when the search warrant was executed. There is no evidence to suggest the dogs belonged to Mr. LaRose. Although he was seen walking a dog, it is unknown if it was one of the dogs from unit 804.

53The drugs were of a significant value, and I accept it is unreasonable to suggest that they would have been left unattended or in the presence of anyone who was not a trusted ally; an ally who was aware of their existence and of their value. The fact the drugs were not in plain view does challenge the inference of knowledge with respect to Mr. LaRose however, the drugs were not particularly well hidden from view. The backpack and the bathroom cupboard were easily accessible to anyone in the unit. That being said, when the unit was breached on the warrant execution, there is no evidence Mr. LaRose responded in a way to suggest he knew anything about the illicit drugs. He was fully and immediately compliant with the demands of the police. It is possible he was staying overnight to care for the dogs.

54The accused had exchanged approximately 65 text messages over the June to July, 2023 time period, demonstrating they had a close personal relationship and they were in regular contact with each other. However, there is no evidence as to the nature or the contents of the exchanged texts. There is nothing to suggest the texts could be construed as supporting an inference of drug possession or trafficking by Mr. LaRose.

55Having considered the factors outlined in R. v. Kaufman, I am satisfied that Mr. Harris-Griffiths had knowledge and control of the illegal drugs found in 804-2240 Weston Road on July 28, 2023. While there is little direct evidence regarding the drugs, the overwhelming totality of the circumstantial evidence and the lack of evidence leads to the conclusion that there is no other reasonable or rational inference to be drawn from the evidence than a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

56I am satisfied there are no other plausible theories respecting possession of the drugs. Mr. Harris-Griffiths had constructive possession of the drugs seized from 804-2240 Weston Road. There can be no other reasonable conclusion from the totality of the evidence and the lack of evidence. The Crown has met its burden to prove the drug offences against Mr. Harris-Griffiths on the CR-24-218 indictment.

57I am not satisfied the Crown has met its burden to establish a finding of constructive and/or joint possession against Mr. LaRose. There is simply a paucity of evidence to support or suggest that Mr. LaRose resided at 804-2240 Weston Road, or that he knew about the drugs or acquiesced to their storage in Mr. Harris-Griffiths’ backpack and/or the bathroom cabinet. There are alternate reasonable inferences and conclusions that could be drawn respecting the evidence and the lack of evidence as it is related to Mr. LaRose. I have not been persuaded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Mr. LaRose exercised control over the drugs. Therefore, he is acquitted of the drug charges on the CR-24-218 indictment.

58Mr. LaRose has also been charged with possession of a prohibited weapon without a license. When the search warrant was executed, metal brass knuckles were found in an otherwise empty laptop bag on a shelf in the closet by the front door. The laptop bag had a red strip connected to the shoulder strap. There was nothing inside nor affixed to the bag to indicate its owner.

59On June 3, 2023, when Mr. LaRose was seen walking the dog, he was carrying a laptop bag with a similar red strip. It may be reasonable to conclude the bag is the same one as was searched by HRPS. It is not reasonable however to assume it held the same contents eight weeks later, on July 28, 2023.

60There is no forensic evidence to connect Mr. LaRose to the brass knuckles. Indeed, there is no evidence whatsoever to connect Mr. LaRose to the brass knuckles. At best, there is evidence that eight weeks earlier, he carried the same laptop bag as was searched by HRPS. This does not meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in respect of the charge that he possessed a prohibited weapon. Mr. LaRose is acquitted of this charge on the CR-24-218 indictment.

61Mr. LaRose was subject to a Release Order dated December 14, 2022. The release conditions required him to reside with his surety, Mr. Palmer Foster, at 403-2190 Weston Road and to remain in the residence at all times except when in the presence of his surety.

62As evidenced from the surveillance photo of Mr. LaRose walking the dog, he was not in his residence, nor was he in the presence of his surety. However, that is not the breach charged in the indictment. Mr. LaRose was charged with failing to reside at 402-2190 Weston Road.

63The evidence does not support a finding that Mr. LaRose was residing at 804-2240 Weston Road at the time of his arrest. There was no evidence to support the allegation that he was not residing at 402-2190 Weston Road. An acquittal shall be entered respecting this charge on the CR-24-220 indictment.

64Therefore, guilty verdicts shall be entered on Counts #1 and #3 on the CR-24-218 Indictment for Mr. Harris-Griffiths. Acquittals shall be entered on Counts #1, #3 and #4 for Mr. LaRose. At the commencement of the trial, the Crown withdrew Count #2.

65An acquittal shall be entered on Count #1 on the CR-24-220 Indictment, and at the request of the Crown, an acquittal was previously entered on Count #2.

J. E. Mills J.

Footnotes

1. 1R. v. Ahmadzai, 2012 BCCA 215.
2. 2Subsection 4(3) Criminal Code; R. v. Pannu, 2015 ONCA 677, at para. 155.
3. 32025 ONSC 6253, at para. 18(i).
4. 4R. v. Kocsis, 2001 3593 (ONCA); R. v. Fisher, 2005 BCCA 444.
5. 5R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33.
6. 6Ibid., at para. 41.
7. 7R. v. Griggs, 2026 ONCA 135, at para. 53; R. v. Uhrig, 2012 ONCA 470, at para. 13
8. 8R. v. Ajibola, 2024 ONCA 525.
9. 9R. v. Knight, 2019 ONSC 2443; R. v. Immel, 2025 ONCA 353.
10. 10S. 4(3)(b) Criminal Code, R.S.C.1985, c. C-46; R. v. Fisher, supra., R. v. Terrence, 1983 51 (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 357, at 364.
11. 11R. v. Paiaskoski, 1979 2920 (ONCA).
12. 12R. v. Grey, 1996 35 (ONCA).
13. 13R. v. Masters, 2014 ONCA 556, at para. 23.
14. 14R. v. Nikolovski, 1996 158 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1197
15. 15R. v. Lam, 2014 ONSC 3538, at para. 191; R. v. Gough, 2013 ONCA 137, at para. 38.
16. 16R. v. Pham, 2005 44671, at para. 22 (ONCA); R. v. Noble, 1997 388 (SCC), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 874, at para. 89.