His Majesty the King v. Michael Meikle, 2026 ONSC 1819

COURT FILE NO.: CR-24-90000597 DATE: 20260324

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

– and –

MICHAEL MEIKLE

Jason Mitschele and Abrahim Ahmed, for the Crown

Ronald Chu, for Mr. Meikle

HEARD: January 27, 28, 29, 30, and February 17, 2026

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - TRIAL

VELLA J.:

1The accused, Michael Meikle, is charged with four counts of trafficking in a controlled substance contrary to s. 5(1) and one count of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), and three counts of possession of proceeds of crime, contrary to s. 355(b) of the Criminal Code.¹

2At the outset of trial, Mr. Meikle plead guilty to four counts of trafficking in a controlled substance, contrary to s. 5(1) of the CDSA.

3Before tendering his plea, Mr. Meikle was provided with an opportunity to obtain, and did obtain, legal advice from his immigration lawyer, criminal defence lawyer and a support worker. Thereafter, I conducted a plea inquiry after which Mr. Meikle was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the above stated four counts, and not guilty to the remaining 4 counts.

4There were two Statements of Agreed Facts, the Crown called seven police witnesses including a police expert, and Mr. Meikle testified in his own defence.

5In addition, the agreed statement of facts tendered for purpose of the pleas at the outset of trial was admitted for the truth of the content as long as no different evidence contradicting those facts was revealed during the course of trial.

6By way of preliminary motion for the admission of cross count evidence under rule 30, which was uncontested, I granted an order for the admission of the evidence as circumstantial evidence only, but not for the impermissible purpose of establishing on the part of the accused a propensity to engage in drug trafficking deals which would render the evidence, presumptively, inadmissible similar fact evidence (R. v. Baksh, 2022 ONCA 481; R. v. Jahangiri, 2022 ONCA 644; R. v. Lepage, 1995 123 (SCC), [1995] 1 S.C.R. 654, at para. 37).

7More specifically, the evidence arising from three drug trafficking meetings between Mr. Meikle and an undercover officer is admissible to support the inference that Mr. Meikle had knowledge and control of a large quantity of multi-coloured fentanyl later found in an apartment located at Unit 307, 98 Vaughan Road, Toronto (“Unit 307”), as set out in paragraph 4 of the Crown’s factum in support of its rule 30 application. Mr. Meikle reserved the right to argue what weight if any should be attributed to the pieces of evidence.

8At the conclusion of the Crown’s case, the Crown withdrew count 2 and count 5 relating to possession of the proceeds of crime.

9At the conclusion of trial, Mr. Meikle pleaded guilty to the remaining count of possession of proceeds of crime relating to the October 23, 2023 arrest, contrary to s. 5(4) of the Criminal Code.

10This leaves one count to be determined: that on or about the 23^rd day of October 2023, Mr. Meikle was in possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the CDSA.

11Pursuant to the Agreed Statement of Facts #1, the following facts are not in dispute

(a) The offences, if committed, were committed on October 19, October 21, and October 23, 2023, respectively;

(b) The offences, if committed, were committed in the City of Toronto;

(c) The accused before the court, Michael Meikle (DOB: 2001/11/02), was the individual arrested by the police on October 23, 2023;

(d) The continuity of all items seized is admitted;

(e) The expert qualifications of D.C. Jorge Hurtado #10465 and his curriculum vitae are admitted;

(f) Unit 307-98 Vaughan Road: Through property management, DC Alias was informed that Mr. Meikle entered Unit 307 after the October 21 deal. He was subsequently informed by the landlord that Good Shepherd Ministries rents out that apartment. This information is not being tendered for the truth of its contents, but for narrative purposes only.

(g) The nature of the drugs seized is conceded. Specifically, the nature of the following drugs is admitted, however, the quantity of any drugs seized is not admitted:

Undercover deal on October 19, 2023: Description: Fentanyl – chunks of pink/purple/green wrapped in a piece of clear cellophane; Tested as: Fentanyl, Xylazine or its salts, Caffeine, Dimethylsulphone, Dextromethorphan.

Undercover deal on October 21, 2023: Description: Cocaine – wrapped in clear cellophane; Tested as: Cocaine; Description: Fentanyl – purple and pink/purple chunks wrapped in clear cellophane; Tested as: Fentanyl, Xylazine or its salts, Caffeine, Dimethylsulphone, Dextromethorphan;

Undercover deal on October 23, 2023: Description: Fentanyl – pink wrapped in clear cellophane inside of a clear Ziploc style bag; Tested as: P-fluorofentanyl, Fentanyl, Xylazine or its salts, Caffeine, Dimethylsulphone, Dextromethorphan.

Seized from 307-98 Vaughan Road on October 23, 2023: Description and Tested as per Exhibit 3 but included various colours of fentanyl: dark pink, light pink, light blue, purple, grey, blue, and combination of colours, in various clear bags within (largely sandwich size) Ziploc bags and tested with the seized Ziploc bags variously as containing one or more of P-fluorofentanyl, Fentanyl, Xylazine or its salts, Dimethylsulphone, Diphenhydramine, , Bromazolam, Ibuprofen or its salts, Caffeine, Dextromethorphan.

12Pursuant to the Agreed Statement of Facts #2 for Trial, the following additional facts were admitted:

(a) Michael Meikle lost his health card and driver’s licence in July 2022;

(b) Justice for Children and Youth provided Mr. Meikle with photocopies of the above in or around August 4, 2022, which they had on file;

(c) Justice for Children and Youth assisted Mr. Meikle with applying for a replacement health card on August 9, 2022. Mr. Meikle received a replacement health card on August 23, 2022;

(d) Mr. Meikle received a temporary driver’s licence on August 25, 2022 and a replacement driver’s licence on September 27, 2022.

13Furthermore, the Certificates of Analysis of the sold and seized drugs from Health Canada were admitted on consent into evidence.

The Parties Respective Positions

14The Crown’s case is circumstantial. The Crown submits that the only reasonable inference to draw from the totality of the evidence is that Mr. Meikle possessed the controlled substances found in Unit 307 for the purpose of trafficking. The Crown submits that Mr. Meikle’s evidence should be rejected on the basis that he was neither a credible nor reliable witness.

15The defence submits that the circumstantial evidence gives rise to competing reasonable inferences, including the inference that the drugs seized on October 23 2023 from a black backpack located in Unit 307 did not belong to Mr. Meikle but rather the tenant/occupant or another guest of the tenant, and therefore I must acquit as reasonable doubt is established. The defence is only contesting whether the seized drugs belonged to, or were under the control of, Mr. Meikle. The defence is not asking the Crown to prove that the possession, if proven, was for the purpose of trafficking.

The Law

16Since Mr. Meikle testified on his own behalf, I must apply the principles set out in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 in determining whether the Crown has proven the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt.

17Those principles require that if I believe Mr. Meikle’s evidence, I must acquit. Furthermore, if I do not believe his testimony, but am left with in reasonable doubt by it, I must acquit. Finally, if I am not left in doubt by the evidence of Mr. Meikle, then I still must determine whether, on the basis of the evidence which I do accept, I am convinced of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

18There must be knowledge of, and control over, the controlled substances on the part of the accused to be deemed to be in possession (R. v. Pham, 2005 44671 (ON CA), [2005] O.J. No. 5127 (ONCA), at paras. 17-18; aff’d. 2006 SCC 26). With respect to the element of knowledge, the Court of Appeal, at para. 17, adopted Watt J.’s dicta in R. v. Sparling, [1988] O.J. No. 107 (Ont. H.C.) at p 6:

There is no direct evidence of the applicant’s knowledge of the presence of narcotics in the residence. It is not essential that there be such evidence for as with any other issue of fact in a criminal proceeding, it may be established by circumstantial evidence. In combination, the finding of narcotics in plain view in the common areas of the residence, the presence of a scale in a bedroom apparently occupied by the applicant, and the applicant’s apparent occupation of the premises may serve to found an inference of the requisite knowledge.

19The Crown relies on circumstantial evidence to prove that Mr. Meikle had the requisite knowledge and control of the controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking. The proper approach to circumstantial evidence is set out in R. v Lights, 2020 ONCA 128, 149 O.R. (3d) 273, at paras 36-37:

When the Crown’s case consists wholly or substantially of circumstantial evidence, the standard of proof requires the trier of fact to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence as a whole: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 20.

20In Pham, the Court of Appeal held:

The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the essential elements of the offence of possession. This can be accomplished by direct evidence or may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. In Re: Chambers and the Queen, supra at 448, Martin J. A. noted that the court may draw “appropriate inferences from evidence that a prohibited drug is found in a room under the control of an accused and where there is also evidence from which an inference may properly be drawn that the accused was aware of the presence of the drug”.

21In determining whether the circumstantial evidence meets the requisite criminal standard of proof, the trier of fact must keep in mind that it is the evidence, assessed as a whole, that must meet this standard of proof, not each individual piece of evidence that is but a link in the chain of proof ( R. v Smith, 2016 ONCA 25, 333 C.C.C. (3d) 534, at paras. 81-82). Thus, the trier of fact is not to assess the circumstantial evidence on a piece-meal basis.

22Put another way, “it is the cumulative effect of all the evidence that must satisfy the criminal standard of proof, not each individual item which is merely a link in the chain of proof: R. v. Morin, 1988 8 (SCC), 2 S.C.R. 345, at p. 361; R. v. Uhrig, 2012 ONCA 470, at para. 13 (Smith, at para. 81).

23In R. v. Sandhu, 2017 ONCA 709, at para. 4, the Court of Appeal observed that a reasonable inference can be drawn from the value of drugs left in a location: “a valuable amount of drugs would not be entrusted to anyone who did not know about them or where they were located” (see also R. v Bryan, 2013 ONCA 97, at para. 11).

24A reasonable inference can also be drawn that personal papers will generally be maintained in a place that a person has access to and control over such as income tax forms, invoices, and cancelled cheques as “a matter of logic and common sense” (R. v Emes, 2001 3973 (ON CA), [2001], OJ No. 2469 (ONCA), at paras. 7-8).

25In R. v. Daponte, [2023] O.J. No. 3852 (ON CA), at para. 22, the Court of Appeal endorsed the trial judge’s findings of fact as supporting the inference on circumstantial evidence that the accused’s occupancy combined with the other 6 facts was sufficient to conclude that the accused had knowledge or control of the drugs seized:

a. Mr. Dapone was the only person found on the property during the execution of the search warrant and based on the presence of items on the kitchen counter and stove, among others, it was reasonable to infer that he was an occupant and residing there on the date of the search and seizure;

b. Although there was no direct evidence that Mr. Daponte possessed a key that opened the garage door or the door to the residence, surveillance of him entering and exiting supported the reasonable inference that he had access to a key to enter these premises;

c. Based on his being seen at various locations on the property, and his being referenced on business cards associated with the farm, it was reasonable to infer he had regular access to other structures on the property including the subject drive shed;

d. Very similar items were found in the residence to those used to contain the drugs in the drive shed, including red zip-lock baggies, cigarette containers, and pill bottles;

e. The significant quantity of drugs seized led to a reasonable inference that such a cache would not be entrusted to any person not aware of the contents of the containers;

f. The hiding spot for the drugs was “very crafty” and the containers were “extremely well concealed”, leaving little concern regarding detection. This undercut the defence position that the absence of a lock on the shed I which the drugs were found ought to militate against knowledge and control. Put another way, whoever possessed these drugs took significant, deliberate, and careful steps to conceal them.

26Daponte is instructive by way of an example of circumstantial evidence that is capable of supporting the requisite inference on a charge of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the CDSA.

Assessment of the Evidence

27As stated, the statements of agreed facts were tendered into evidence, I will not repeat those facts here.

28Mr. Meikle’s testimony concerning the three undercover drug operations with the undercover officer, Detective Caroline Whyte, on October 19, 21, and 23, was substantially in accordance with DC Whyte’s testimony with the exception of certain important discrepancies. Accordingly, I must resolve a credibility issue as between Mr. Meikle and DC Whyte and indeed the credibility of each of the witnesses.

29I can, of course, accept none, all or some of the evidence of each witness.

October 19, 2023 Transaction

30Detective Constable Whyte testified that she called a phone number – 437-299-4612 - but no one answered. Then, about 2 hours later, she received a call from a different telephone number (437-332-2272). The caller introduced themselves as “Skills” and said “you called?”. She later came to know Skills as the accused. Mr. Meikle agreed he used the name “Skills” at the time.

31During this conversation, DC Whyte told Skills she was looking for “sixty dollars”. Skills asked her where she was and she told him she was at the Shops of Don Mills.

32According to DC Whyte, Skills told her he was at St. Clair West subway station and would pick her up; however, she advised that she would drive to him and would be there around 6:30 p.m. Skills responded okay and asked “60 of Fentis”? She said yes.

33DC Whyte went to the subway station but first attended a briefing and was given police money to buy the drugs. She arrived at St. Clair West station, but in response to Skill’s telephone call advised that she was outside of Holy Rosary Church. A couple of minutes later, Skills called and said he was in front of Loblaws. She responded that she was east of there and gave him a description of her vehicle. She observed a man (identified as Mr. Meikle) arrive on a black electric scooter. He approached the passenger side door of her car and asked how much? She responded she only had $60.00.

34According to DC Whyte, Mr. Meikle told her he usually sells more – “7 or higher” meaning 7 points or .7 grams of fentanyl and asked her what colour she wanted as he had pink and green. He also told her he had samples and was dealing in this area. He then took out his scale and weighed the fentanyl. He said he would give her one gram this time. He gave her the fentanyl, took the $60.00 and left on his e-scooter. DC White returned to the police station and handed over the drugs to Sergeant Bentley who handled all of the evidence seized in this investigation.

35Under cross examination DC Whyte confirmed that she understood “7 or more” to be 7 points of fentanyl which would cost $70. She agreed that Mr. Meikle told her he lived downtown which she agreed could include the Bloor and Bathurst area. She confirmed that she did not buy all that Mr. Meikle had that day. He had to weigh the amount on the scales, and he put the rest back inside pocket.

36Mr. Meikle testified that he did not offer to pick up DC Whyte when they spoke on the phone. He said he could not have picked her up because he was not driving and did not own a vehicle. He travelled by way of his e-scooter, public transit and sometimes by bicycle. DC Whyte maintained that during their initial communications prior to meeting Mr. Meikle offered to pick her up and asked where she was located.

37Mr. Meikle denied telling DC Whyte that he only sells “7 and higher”.

38Mr. Meikle also claimed that DC Whyte told him she was sick and this caused him to feel sorry for her which is why he gave her more fentanyl than she requested and did not charge her for the extra. He knew what it felt like when in withdrawal. He also said he liked her and had a “crush” on her. He denied he was giving her a sample to encourage her to eventually buy more or “upsell” her.

39DC Whyte testified that she never told Mr. Meikle she was sick, but that he did provide her with about 1 gram of fentanyl when she asked for .6 grams, and she paid him for .6 grams in the sum of $60.00.

40Mr. Meikle also claimed that he did not offer a choice of colour of fentanyl to DC White, whereas DC Whyte said he did and gave her pink and blue fentanyl wrapped in plastic wrap. She also observed that he removed a large clear bag and scale and she saw 8 – 10 large pieces of pink and red substance which she believed to be fentanyl.

41The certificate of analysis for the October 19^th fentanyl sold to DC White states that the substance was Fentanyl with Xylazine or its salts, caffeine, dimethylsulphone and dextromethorphan.

42Sergeant Bentley testified that the drugs sold to DC Whyte on October 19 2023 weighed .98 grams, and had been wrapped in clear cellophane, and was mainly pink with some purple and a very small green piece. The weight is admitted in the Agreed Statement of Facts and Agreed Statement of Facts for the Plea, as well as the admission that Mr. Meikle provided .95 gams of fentanyl in exchange for $60 CAD police pre-recorded buy money.

October 21 2023 transaction

43Mr. Meikle testified that he spoke on the phone with DC Whyte and offered to sell her a half a ball for $175. He said half a ball equated to 1.75 grams of fentanyl. He testified that on October 21, 2023 he handed over all the fentanyl that he had to her when they met in front of Holy Rosary Church in her vehicle, and had no extra fentanyl stored anywhere else. He initially said in chief he did not weigh it out before he gave it to the undercover officer. He weighed it out for her on a scale in front of her. Then he said in fact he weighed it out before he got into the undercover officer’s car.

44Mr. Meikle testified in chief that he always kept his supply of drugs on his person, because he had no place to store his supply, and that his supply was for his own personal consumption.

45He emphasized in chief when asked where he kept the substances he consumed that they were “on me. Just me – no where else”. He testified that he did not have a place to stay so he had no where else to store his drugs.

46He agreed with DC Whyte that, after he gave her the fentanyl, they drove from the Holy Rosary Church meeting place to a parking lot at 11A Kenwood Road, which is very close to Unit 307. He agreed that the officer told him she wanted to buy cocaine and that he had to go into Unit 307 to retrieve it. He then said, contrary to his earlier testimony in chief, that he did not always keep his drugs on him. He explained that he had some “leftover cocaine” on the floor of Unit 307 and that is what he sold to the undercover officer. Under cross examination, he further clarified his answer by saying he only kept all his fentanyl on his person and not the cocaine. He explained that he worried that if he kept both types of drugs on his person (fentanyl and cocaine) it would put him at risk.

47He confirmed that when he left DC Whyte’s vehicle to get the cocaine from Unit 307 he left his e-scooter in her car because he was not worried she would drive off with it. He testified that he went to Unit 307, opened the door with his key, and retrieved his own personal supply of cocaine which he had not finished consuming.

48Sergeant Bentley testified that he weighed 1.25 grams of fentanyl and 1.32 grams of cocaine from this transaction which is also admitted by Mr. Meikle as accurate. Sergeant Bentley testified that the fentanyl was purple with some pink.

49It was also agreed that DC Whyte paid $270 CAD for these drugs.

50However, a discrepancy arose with respect to the timing of payment for the fentanyl versus the cocaine.

51Mr Meikle testified that DC Whyte initially paid her one amount for the fentanyl and then subsequently a second amount for the cocaine once he gave it to her. He was adamant that he would not have left the car to retrieve the cocaine without having been paid for the fentanyl he already gave to her, in case she drove off without paying him.

52DC Whyte testified that she did not pay him any money for the drugs until Mr. Meikle returned to her car with the cocaine. Then she paid him the full $270.00. She testified that he had already given her the fentanyl and dropped it into the empty cupholder of her car before Mr. Meikle left to get the cocaine.

53Under cross examination, Mr. Meikle confirmed that while he said he would not have left the car without receiving the money for the fentanyl, he did leave his e-scooter in the car while he went to Unit 307 to get the cocaine. He admitted that the e-scooter was expensive and valuable to him. However, he testified that he was not worried about DC Whyte taking off with his e-scooter because she did not want an e-scooter, but she did want the fentanyl.

54In the Agreed Statement of Facts for the Plea, it was agreed that Mr. Meikle entered and exited 98 Vaughan Road, leaving Officer Whyte parked in the parking lot of 11A Kenwood Avenue, and that he supplied her with 1.25 grams of fentanyl and 1.32 grams of cocaine in exchange for $270 of police pre-recorded buy money.

October 23, 2023 Arrest

55DC Whyte initiated the meeting on October 23 when she sent a text at 4:24 p.m. to the same phone number she had been texting “Skills” with and asked “hey are you around”. Mr. Meikle responded “always” and “what’s up”? DC Whyte responded that she wanted 7 points to which Mr. Meikle replied: take three more “2 hunnid” (meaning two hundred dollars) for 10 points or 1 gram of fentanyl. DC Whyte replied “deal” to which Mr. Meikle responded she could also take 3 grams of “Coco” meaning cocaine. At 4:54 he texted did she like the “white” again meaning cocaine and DC Whyte responded no – not great. She proposed meeting at the Holy Rosary church at 6:30 p.m. and Mr. Meikle agreed.

56At the police briefing, it was determined that Mr. Meikle would be arrested on this occasion.

57DC Whyte arrived at Holy Rosary church at 6:22 p.m. in plain clothes and an unmarked vehicle as with the prior two meetings with Mr. Meikle. Mr. Meikle arrived on his e-scooter.

58Shortly after he entered DC Whyte’s vehicle, Mr. Meikle was arrested.

59Officers Bentley, Gavin Alias and Sean Stockwell were involved in the arrest while Detective Keveza observed. All of the police officers testified.

60Sergeant Alias testified that he ordered the arrest of Mr. Meikle as soon as Mr. Meikle entered DC Whyte’s vehicle. Sergeant Alias made the arrest. DC Stockwell forcibly removed Mr. Meikle from the car because he was resisting. Detective Constable Stockwell, assisted by Sergeant Bentley, put Mr. Meikle on the ground for his safety and that of the officers.

61DC Stockwood placed Mr. Meikle in hand cuffs and read him his rights and right to counsel.

62Sergeant Alias then searched Mr. Meikle. He seized a cellphone, currency, and a single key and fob. No identification or wallet was located on him. Fentanyl was also seized from Mr. Meikle’s person.

63Sergeant Bentley placed the drugs seized from Mr. Meikle’s person and later from Unit 307, into exhibit bags, and sent samples to Health Canada, as he did with respect to the drugs from the prior two transactions.

64Sergeant Bentley also counted the money seized from Mr. Meikle incident to his arrest. There was $710 comprised of 4 x $100, 4 x $50, 5 x $20, and 2 x $5 dollar bills. There was 3.24 grams of fentanyl seized from Mr. Meikle incident to his arrest which was purple with some pink and wrapped in clear cellophane in a clear zip lock bag.

65Back at the police station, the police “proofed” or verified that the cell phone seized from Mr. Meikle was the same cell phone that was used for the communications between him and DC Whyte.

66Mr. Meikle confirmed that when he was arrested, he had 3.4 grams of fentanyl on his person but did not have any identification.

67Under cross examination, Mr. Meikle testified that he received $300 of the $710 seized on his person from the drug sale to DC Whyte and that he had 3.24 grams of fentanyl on his person which was purple with a chunk of pink. He agreed that this was a different colour from the fentanyl he sold to DC Whyte on October 21^st and on October 19th as well. He agreed the fentanyl sold to DC Whyte came from three different batches. He also agreed that the fentanyl he bought was in separate one half or on ounce batches otherwise the colours would mix together.

68In the Agreed Statement of Facts for the Plea, it was agreed that during the search of Mr. Meikle, the police located 3.24 grams of fentanyl, $710 CAD and a cell phone.

October 23 2023 search of and seizure at Unit 307

69After the arrest was completed, Sergeant Alias went to Unit 307 along with Sergeant Bentley, Detective Constable Stockwell, Detective Constable Garcia, and Detective Ryan Keveza. The arrest was at 6:29 p.m. and the search of Unit 307 commenced at 6:47 p.m. pursuant to the CDSA search warrant. Sergeant Alias used the fob he retrieved from Mr. Meikle to open the rear doors of 98 Vaughan Road. When they arrived at Unit 307 the door was unlocked, however, the search entry video he made showed that the key seized from Mr. Meikle worked the lock to the door.

70Mr. Meikle testified that the reason why he left the door to Unit 307 unlocked during this transaction was because he was not worried about anything being stolen since he was intending to go right back to the unit after this transaction. Furthermore, he disclaimed any knowledge of the large quantity of fentanyl that was ultimately seized from that apartment; otherwise he would have locked the door with such a valuable quantity being inside.

71After taking the brief search entry video, the police officers entered the unit and found no one else was present.

72Detective Keveza described the unit as about 350 – 400 square feet with a lot of needles and drug user materials on the ground. There were a lot of user kits that safe injection sites hand out in Toronto. He was certain the needs were not medical needles but rather for drug users based on his experience. When he searched the bathroom, he found nothing of interest.

73However, Detective Constable Chris Garcia testified that he located a black Herschel backpack with drugs and paraphernalia in it, along with photocopies of Mr. Meikle’s lost driver’s licence and health card, in the kitchen.

74More specifically, DC Garcia testified that when he opened the black Herschel backpack, he found inside it a large zip lock bag containing two smaller clear medium bags with colour substances which seemed to be fentanyl. He also found inside the backpack another medium bag with gloves, a digital scale, packaging and copies of Mr. Meikle’s lost driver’s licence and health card. All items were photographed by Sergeant Alias and DC Garcia identified each photograph. He observed that the substances were pink, blue, green, brown and purple. He turned over the backpack and contents to Sergeant Bentley at the major crime unit office at the police station. He noted that when he found the backpack the zipper was closed but there was no lock on it.

75Sergeant Bentley identified the contents of the seized black Herschel backpack (also referred to as the black backpack in these Reasons): a total of 336.43 grams of fentanyl in a variety of colours with the fentanyl pieces individually wrapped in clear cellophane, and in zip lock bags, together with nitrile gloves and CPR masks. Photographs of the backpack’s contents were entered into evidence.

76Back at the police station, Sergeant Alias proofed the cellphone seized from Mr. Meikle with DC Whyte, meaning they established it was the same phone with which Mr. Meikle communicated with DC Whyte.

77Mr. Meikle denied that he had any knowledge, much less control, over the drugs seized in the black backpack found in the kitchen of Unit 307 by police. He stated that he did not “know those substances were there” and “did not have control over them” on the day of the arrest.

78He did admit however that he was at Unit 307 during the day of the arrest and had the fob to the building and keys to unit 307 which were on his person when he was arrested. He testified that the “owner” lent them to him the day before he was arrested; i.e.: October 22, 2023.

79He testified that he left the door to Unit 307 unlocked on October 23 when he went to meet the undercover officer to sell her more drugs. He reiterated that when he left the unit, he did not know there was fentanyl in the unit and would have locked the door had he known over 300 grams of fentanyl was there because that is a lot of drugs and someone could have stolen it.

80However, on cross examination, he had admitted he had intended to go right back to the Unit after the deal and was not worried about the belongings inside the apartment being stolen (including his own back pack).

81The fentanyl was concealed in the zippered black backpack in the kitchen area.

82Mr. Meikle’s evidence that he was lent the keys and fob the day before his arrest is contradicted by his testimony that on October 21, 2023, he had used the same keys to unlock Unit 307. Therefore, he had the fob for the building and the keys to Unit 307 on at least October 21, 22 and 23, 2023 by his own testimony.

83He could not identify the photograph of the bicycle taken by the police during the search of the unit. However, it will be remembered that he earlier testified that sometimes he used a bicycle to travel on.

84He identified a different blue and orange backpack found in Unit 307 as being his backpack.

85He identified the seized black Herschel backpack from the photographs taken by the police during the search of the unit but said it is not his backpack. He said he recognized it, and that he saw the “owner” having worn it. He did not specify the name of the “owner” to whom he was referring. It could be the main occupant – Fred Musik – or he could have meant the owner of the backpack. He provided no further details about the black backpack, when he first noticed it, the circumstances under which he saw the unnamed “owner” wearing it, or when. He was vague about this important factor.

86He also mentioned that he would see people coming and going from Unit 307 but did not provide any details about what people he saw, when, or whether they were also residing in the Unit 307 from time to time. Again, he was vague.

87He also identified the photographs of photocopies his lost drivers’ licence and lost OHIP card which bore the address of his father’s residence (with whom he lived until he was ejected by his father in or around 2020). Mr. Meikle explained that he had lost this identification in 2022 but had been given photocopies by Justice for Children and Youth who had the copies on file, pending obtaining a temporary replacement drivers licence and OHIP card in August of 2022.

88When asked about the location of his new driver’s licence card, he testified that it was currently at the south detention centre. He then added that the new driver’s licence was on his person when he got arrested. Then he changed his answer and said it was not on him at the time of his arrest (consistent with the police officers’ testimony), but rather at “my girl’s place” without explaining to whom he was referring, the location, or when. Then, when prompted by his lawyer as to how did the new driver’s licence end up in his property at the detention centre, he changed his answer again and said he was arrested with it on his person on October 23 2023. When asked again by his lawyer, however, he then said on the day of his arrest, the drivers licence card was “at my girl’s?”. He was then asked directly by his lawyer whether after he got bail, he went back and got his driver’s licence from “his girl’s”. Mr. Meikle answered “yes” but without clarification of who his “girl” was, much less the location of his “girl’s” place.

89Mr. Meikle testified that he received his new driver’s licence in 2022 with a University Avenue address. He denied keeping photocopies of any driver’s licences and said he had no reason to have kept the copy of his old licence. However, he admitted earlier that in fact he had a copy of his lost driver’s licence from Justice for Children and Youth and in the Agreed Statement of Facts this was admitted as well as Justice for Children and Youth having a copy of his health card too. He offered no explanation about what he did, if anything, with the copies of his identification provided by Justice for Children and Youth or how those copies appeared in the black backpack, with the drugs and paraphernalia, in Unit 307, where he had been staying and had the fob and keys, on the day of his arrest. He did not suggest that somehow Mr. Musik had obtained his photocopied identification. As stated, no one else was present in Unit 307 on the day of the execution of the search warrant.

90It is also noteworthy that he did not indicate whether or not Mr. Musik was in Unit 307 at any time between October 21 and October 23 or even on October 19 for that matter. He did not give any testimony about the frequency, or lack thereof, of Mr. Musik’s attendance at the Unit in October 2023, or since 2022. It was apparent from the photographs of the Unit submitted into evidence that there was only one mattress on the floor of the unit.

Additional Evidence

91Mr. Meikle testified under cross examination that he also purchased fentanyl for Fred Musik whom he met for the first time in front of the St. Clair West station in 2021. He “bumped into” Mr. Musik and had never met him before.

92According to Mr. Meikle, Mr. Musik happened to ask him if he could get fentanyl for him. Mr. Meikle agreed and they struck a deal that in exchange for selling fentanyl to him, Mr. Musik would let him stay at Unit 307 which is located close to the St. Clair West station. He also stated that he was not, personally, using fentanyl when he met Mr. Musik.

93Under cross examination, Mr. Meikle testified he obtained the fentanyl for Mr. Musik from his own supplier. He would go to his supplier to buy the fentanyl for Mr. Musik and sell it to him whenever he was asked.

94Under cross examination, it was established that Mr. Meikle lost his job at Canadian Tire in 2021 and that his sole source of income was Ontario Works in the sum of $733 per month, payable at the end of the month.

95It was also established that in October 2023, he was addicted to fentanyl (as confirmed by a letter from CAMH stating his diagnosis, admitted on consent) and was taking 1 – 2 grams daily. He said he might smoke .1 grams at a time every few hours throughout the day. He started using fentanyl in 2021 after he met Mr. Musik. He testified that they sometimes did drugs together.

96Furthermore, Mr. Meikle was addicted to cocaine by then and consumed 1 – 2 grams of that drug each day. He typically snorts .1 gram of cocaine each time every few hours. He started using cocaine in 2020 before he met Mr. Musik.

97Mr. Meikle testified that when he would buy an ounce of fentanyl it was sometimes in different colours – same when he bought it in half ounce amounts. He also confirmed that the separate colours would not be mixed together – once mixed they could not be separated.

98Mr. Meikle testified that he typically buys half to one ounce of fentanyl for $1,000 an ounce and he never buys less than one half ounce at a time. He buys his fentanyl in bulk in a single bag to get a discount. He could not pinpoint the frequency of purchasing fentanyl but said could be every two weeks or every week and in any event was more often than once a month. As for cocaine, he also buys it in one half to one ounce amounts to get a discount. He pays $500 an ounce for cocaine meaning he always bought at least $250 worth at a time. He agreed that he bought cocaine three times a week at half to one ounce at a time for about $750 a week.

99In total, he agreed in 2023 he spent $750 a week on cocaine. By his own account, Mr. Meikle would have spent at least $500 to $1,000 a month for fentanyl.

Surveillance of Mr. Meikle

100A surveillance team was sent to observe the three transactions: Officers Bentley, Alias, Garcia and Keveza. DC Stockwell was only present on October 23, 2023.

101Sergeant Alias was the road boss for the surveillance conducted on October 19, 2023. The surveillance officers saw Mr. Meikle approach and enter Officer Whyte’s car at the Holy Rosary church area on each occasion. Each time Mr. Meikle arrived on an e-scooter.

102On October 21, 2023, Sergeant Alias observed the Holy Rosary church and saw DC Whyte and Mr. Meikle. Then the team followed DC Whyte’s vehicle to the 11A Kenwood Avenue parking lot at about 5:42 p.m. They observed Mr. Meikle exit the vehicle and walk along Vaughan Road to 98 Vaughan Road. At about 5:49 p.m. He observed Mr. Meikle exit the rear doors of 98 Vaughan Road and then re-enter DC Whyte’s car. He estimated that it was about a one-minute walk from the car to 98 Vaughan road. Detective Keveza echoed these observations.

103Sergeant Alias went into 98 Vaughan Road at about 5:56 p.m. and observed Mr. Meikle enter the rear doors and go up the west stairwell. However, he lost sight of Mr. Meikle at that time.

104DC Chris Garcia testified that he was the central note taker and was on the surveillance team. On October 21^st, he also observed Mr. Meikle fold his e-scooter and put it into the back of DC Whyte’s vehicle. He then also observed Mr. Meikle leave DC Whyte’s vehicle after she drove from Holy Rosary church to the Kenwood parking lot and walk to 98 Vaughan Road.

105On October 23, 2023, Sergeant Alias was the road boss again. He and his team conducted surveillance at Holy Rosary church again. The plan was once Mr. Meikle entered DC Whyte’s vehicle they would arrest him.

106He again observed Mr. Meikle park his e-scooter on the curb of St. Clair West and enter DC Whyte’s vehicle. He then ordered the arrest.

Police Expert

107Detective Constable Jorge Hurtado was qualified as a police expert in the areas of fentanyl distribution including hierarchy, pricing, packaging, modus operandi, quantities consistent with commercial and personal use, terminology, cutting agents, why dealers colour fentanyl and drug paraphernalia.

108A voir dire was conducted on qualifications, but at the conclusion, Detective Constable Hurtado’s qualifications were conceded by the defence.

109I accept Detective Constable Hurtado’s opinion evidence, which was largely unchallenged, in its entirety.

110Fentanyl is manufactured overseas and brought to North America and then the local cities. Anyone with local connections to the distributers can get it.

111There can be a hierarchy of close to ten individuals to get the fentanyl from the manufacturer to the end user. The dealer will have a relationship with the user street level distributer.

112Fentanyl can be inhaled, injected or snorted.

113“Fenti” is a common way of referring to fentanyl.

114A single dose is a point of a gram’ i.e. .1 gram.

115In 2023, the commercial price for fentanyl was $20 a point (or .1 grams). Therefore, the amount seized in the Unit of 336.4 grams of fentanyl was worth approximately $67,286.

116One can save some money by buying fentanyl in bulk. For example, a buyer might pay between $12,000 and $24,000 an ounce in 2023 if bought in bulk.

117A consistent fentanyl user will use 1 to 3 points a day. A heavy user will use .5 grams to 1.5 grams a day.

118If someone asks for a “1” or a “3” that means 1 point (or .1 gram) or 3 points (or .3 grams) of fentanyl, respectively.

119Digital scales are a very important tool of the drug trade as they are needed to weigh the points of fentanyl being sold.

120CPR masks can be used by relatively new users of fentanyl because the user has not yet developed a tolerance for fentanyl. Just smelling fentanyl as a new user can cause an overdose, so CPR masks are worn to prevent that from occurring.

121Similarly, nitrile gloves will be worn by relatively new users to prevent accidental overdoses by contact with fentanyl.

122The main form of financial transactions is by cash only.

123The purpose of cutting agents is to supplement the drug itself. Makes it heavier by weight. The cutting agents found in the seized fentanyl are common ones. The cutting agents come from the manufacturer who will not tell the dealer or user. The fluorofentanyl found is a more potent form.

124Fentanyl’s natural colour is light brownish or whiteish. The different colouring comes from food colouring and is usually added by the manufacturer. A common reason for colouring is to separate themselves from the competition. Users will tend to ask for a specific colour of fentanyl.

125It would not be unusual for a person to store multiple ounces somewhere other than on their person for safety reasons.

126Under cross examination, the expert agreed that large quantities of fentanyl can be kept at the user’s place. The presence of needles and fentanyl can “possibly” mean it is being consumed by the owner of the fentanyl, and a dealer might use gloves as a result of their lower tolerance. Nitril gloves and CPR masks can be used by users for harm reduction, though users develop a high tolerance for fentanyl and rarely use gloves. It is also “possible” that suppliers are operating in the same geographical area, and it would not be uncommon for different end users can end up with the same cutting agents in their fentanly even if they got it from different suppliers.

127DC Hurtado also agreed that, assuming a quantity of 336 grams of fentanyl, a consistent user of 3 points of fentanyl a day would have an over 1000 day supply of fentanyl with 336 grams, whereas a heavy user of 1 gram a day would have about one year’s supply, and a very heavy user of 1.5 grams a day would have seven and one half months supply. The expert added that a user consuming 2 grams of fentanyl a day would be very heavy use and unusual – an outlier.

128He also agreed that if a user had enough money to spend between $12,000 and $20,000 they could save up to $55,000 by buying 336 grams in bulk at once.

129However, in re-examination, the police expert clarified that is not common for even a very heavy user to store a supply of 336 grams of fentanyl in their apartment. They would usually want to sell to make up for their loss because if the person was such a heavy user, they would need to replenish their supply urgently.

Has the Crown Established Mr. Meikle had Possession of Controlled Substances for the Purpose of Trafficking Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

130As stated, the issue is whether the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt, based on circumstantial evidence, that Mr. Meikle had knowledge and control over fentanyl seized from Unit 307 located within the seized black Herschel backpack. If so, the defence concedes that the possession, if established, was for the purpose of trafficking.

131The defence approached the evidence on a piecemeal basis positing possible alternative inferences that might be drawn.

132However, I must assess the evidence as a whole in determining whether the Crown’s reasonable inference is the only reasonable inference.

133Mr. Meikle was not credible. Where his evidence is contrary to the evidence of the Crown’s witnesses on material facts, I favour the Crown witnesses, including where his testimony was contradicted by DC Whyte.

134Mr. Meikle was vague in his testimony. At times he contradicted himself. The explanations he gave, when he gave them, were implausible. Any alternative inferences he raised were not reasonable inferences based on a totality of the evidence.

135Mr. Meikle’s vague suggestion that he saw the “owner” wearing the backpack is not plausible. First, he did not name Mr. Musik as the owner to whom he was referring. It could have been the occupant of the unit or it could have been the owner of the backpack. Assuming Mr. Meikle intended to refer to Mr. Musik, why not name him? Furthermore, Mr. Musik was not described by Mr. Meikle as a dealer or supplier. To the contrary, Mr. Meikle testified that Mr. Musik bought his fentanyl from Mr. Meikle in exchange for allowing Mr. Meikle to stay at Unit 307 and that sometimes they did drugs together in the apartment. It does not give rise, even on a piecemeal basis, to an alternative reasonable inference.

136Mr. Meikle was also extremely vague in his testimony that he saw “others” were present at the Unit from time to time – that vague reference also does not give rise to a reasonable inference that an unidentified “others” owned the black backpack and therefore its contents. Mr. Meikle did not suggest in his testimony that others were at Unit 307 between October 19 and 23, 2023, including Mr. Musik. He also testified that he did not see “others” frequently at this unit.

137Mr. Meikle was, at minimum, an intermittent occupant of Unit 307 since in or around 2022. He admitted having the keys and fob to the apartment unit and building from time to time, including October 21, 22 and 23, 2023. He kept his own belongings there; notably his other backpack, drug paraphernalia, and likely his e-scooter. He left his cocaine in Unit 307 on October 21, 2023, which he retrieved to sell to DC Whyte and which he testified he had been snorting in this apartment. He was also observed by surveillance officers entering and exiting 98 Vaughan Road.

138Furthermore, the numbers do not add up. Mr. Meikle testified that he only received Ontario Works once a month, at the end of the month. He testified that he never bought more than an ounce or ounce and a half at a time of fentanyl and generally did buy in those quantities. He testified that an ounce cost him $1,000 and a half ounce cost him $500, and he purchased fentanyl more than once a month but not every week. In order to keep up his daily habit, as a heavy user of fentanyl and daily user of cocaine, he required far more money, and more frequently, than he was receiving through Ontario Works at the end of each month. Mr. Meikle had to make significantly more money to support his self-proclaimed heavy fentanyl and cocaine habit than he admitted just to support his own habit. Without selling more he could not afford as much as he said he used daily.

139With respect to the discrepancy between DC Whyte and Mr. Meikle’s testimony, Mr. Meikle persisted in his testimony, contrary to DC Whyte’s testimony, that he was paid for the fentanyl on October 21 before he left her vehicle in the 11A Kenwood Ave. parking lot to retrieve his “leftover” cocaine to sell her. His explanation that he would not have left the vehicle being unpaid for the fentanyl he had already delivered is implausible when considered against two considerations. First, he left his e-scooter in the vehicle notwithstanding his admission that it was expensive and valuable to him. It was clearly a main form of transportation for him. Furthermore, his rationale, i.e.: that DC Whyte never expressed an interest in his e-scooter but expressed an interest in fentanyl, also makes no sense given that he, admittedly, was forming a drug dealing relationship with her and his testimony that he had formed an early attraction to her.

140As well, Mr. Meikle’s evidence that on the first transaction he willingly gave DC Whyte an extra approximately 3 points of fentanyl for free because she allegedly said she was sick and he was attracted to her at the first brief encounter, as opposed to offering free samples to upsell her, is implausible. He admitted that he sold two different colours of fentanyl to DC Whyte and, on the day of arrest, had a third colour of fentanyl on his person, in a span of 5 days when he also testified he bought less often than weekly, but more than once a month. Based on the expert evidence, I find that this was a marketing ploy commonly used by street level dealers to gain a competitive edge over other dealers. I also find that Mr. Meikle offered free samples to upsell DC Whyte as he admitted doing on the October 21, 2023 transaction. Furthermore, given Mr. Meikle’s heavy use requirements as an addict himself, and the fact he had only just met Officer Whyte, and briefly at that, it is implausible that he was making a charitable gift of fentanyl when he desperately needed the money to buy more for himself as an addict.

141Accordingly, I favour DC Whyte’s evidence over that of Mr. Meikle where there is a discrepancy between their respective testimony.

142In addition, Mr. Meikle changed his evidence when it suited him. For example, initially he said he kept all of his drugs on his person because he had nowhere to store his drugs. Then when confronted with the fact he left cocaine in Unit 307 on October 21, 2023, he said he meant he only kept his fentanyl on his person and he kept the cocaine in the apartment because it would be too risky to carry all his drugs on his person. Therefore, he effectively admitted that he did have a place to store drugs – Unit 307. He did not identify any other location at which he was staying during the material times.

143By way of further example, Mr. Meikle initially claimed that he did not go into the kitchen on October 23, 2023 where the backpack was found. Then he agreed that he “never” went into the kitchen. It strains credulity that Mr. Meikle never went into the kitchen ever, or even at all on October 23 2023 when he was staying there until about the time of the arrest in early evening. Rather, it appears that Mr. Meikle wanted to physically distance himself as far away from the black backpack as possible as that was better for his position.

144Mr. Meikle testified that he when he bought his ounce or half ounce of fentanyl, it came in one bag and therefore one colour. It was purchased this way to qualify for a discount. Each batch he sold to DC Whyte and the batch found on him, were different colours. Therefore, they came from batches bought separately by Mr. Meikle. According to the expert, the colours in each batch sold would not be mixed. Mr. Meikle admitted that the batches he sold to DC Whyte, and that he had on his person at his arrest, were from different batches. Also, the colours coincided with the colours of fentanyl found in the black Herschel backpack. Furthermore, the cutting agents found in the fentanyl sold to DC Whyte, and found on Mr. Meikle’s person, were consistent with the cutting agents found in the various fentanyl cellophane packages seized from the black backpack. These facts, in and of themselves, could be a coincidence with the fentanyl in the black backpack and the fentanyl packages on Mr. Meikle’s person possibly coming from the same distributer, but this is speculative and when considered in the totality of the evidence does not support a reasonable inference inconsistent with guilt.

145Mr. Meikle testified that had he known the black Herschel backpack had over 300 grams of fentanyl he would never have left the door unlocked on the day of his arrest. However, under cross examination, he admitted that on October 23, 2023, he planned to return right back to the apartment after he concluded the transaction with DC Whyte, and this is why he was not worried about anything being stolen in the interim. Furthermore, there is no evidence that anyone else was in Unit 307 at the time of the third meeting with DC Whyte and subsequent arrest. It was also established that no one was present in Unit 307 when the officers executed the search warrant.

146Last, and particularly stark, Mr. Meikle had no plausible explanation for how it is photocopies of his lost driver’s licence and health card came to be in the black Herschel backpack. In fact, he had no explanation at all. Rather, his response was that he would have had no reason to keep the copies once he had replacement identification. However, he admitted that he was given photocopies of the identification by Justice for Children and Youth in early August 2022 while he waited for new identification which was then received by him later in August and September 2022. He did not deny that the photocopies were true copies of his lost identification. To say it is coincidence that someone retrieved them from somewhere and put them into a backpack that happened to be in the same unit as Mr. Meikle about one year later is not plausible and beyond belief.

147In contrast, the Crown’s witness evidence was internally consistent on the material facts. They gave detailed evidence and did not embellish their respective testimonies. They were not shaken on cross examination. Much of their evidence, including DC Whyte’s evidence, was corroborated by, or consistent with, the documents tendered into evidence.

148The Crown’s expert only conceded as a “possibility” the scenarios put to him in cross examination by the defence. A possibility or speculation does not found a reasonable doubt in this case.

149The overwhelming and only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence as a whole is that the black Herschel backpack containing the fentanyl and drug paraphernalia seized from Unit 307 on October 23, 2023 belonged to Mr. Meikle and that he was aware of their presence, and had control over them.

Conclusion

150When looking at the evidence as a whole, the evidence does not raise reasonable inferences inconsistent with guilt, nor does Mr. Meikle’s evidence leave me in reasonable doubt.

151The only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence as a whole is that the black Herschel backpack belonged to Mr Meikle as did the fentanyl within it. I find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Meikle knew that the fentanyl was in the black Herschel backpack, and exercised control over that backpack and its contents. Mr. Meikle has conceded that the possession, if proven, was for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the CDSA.

152I am satisfied that the evidence, when looked at cumulatively, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Meikle had knowledge and awareness, and exercised control over, the controlled substances located in his black Herschel backpack, located in Unit 307 at the time of seizure, for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the CDSA.

153For these reasons, I find Mr. Meikle guilty on the last remaining count.

Justice S. Vella

Released: March 24, 2026

CITATION: R. v. Meikle, 2026 ONSC 1819