ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
His Majesty the King
– and –
Isaac Stafford
Defendant
Victoria Rivers, for the Crown
Victoria Palermo, for the Defendant
HEARD: December 15-17, 2025
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
NISHIKAWA J.
Overview
1The Defendant, Isaac Stafford, is charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. C-19, (the “CDSA”). He is alleged to have been in possession of 84.3 grams of fentanyl and 19.25 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.
2After a daytime shooting incident at the Yorkdale Mall in Toronto on August 29, 2021, Mr. Stafford ran to the parking lot and drove away in a vehicle. While Mr. Stafford was trying to exit the mall parking lot, the vehicle became stuck in traffic. Mr. Stafford then abandoned the vehicle in a live lane of traffic and went to the Yorkdale TTC station. The Toronto Police Service (“TPS”) obtained a search warrant for the abandoned car. When the search warrant was executed, a significant quantity of fentanyl and powder cocaine was located in a concealed compartment in the driver seat area of the vehicle.
3The sole issue in this case is whether Mr. Stafford had the requisite knowledge and control over the seized drugs to constitute possession. Mr. Stafford admits that if the Crown can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in possession of the fentanyl and cocaine that were found in the vehicle, then the possession was for the purpose of trafficking.
Analysis
The Applicable Principles
General
4Before assessing the evidence, it is helpful to set out the applicable legal principles. First, Mr. Stafford is presumed innocent. Second, the Crown bears the burden of proving the elements of the offences charged beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient to prove that the defendant is probably guilty. However, the Crown is not required to prove its case to the point of absolute certainty, which would be impossibly high.
5In addition, where, as in this case, the Crown’s case rests on circumstantial evidence, the question is whether the trier of fact could reasonably be satisfied that the accused’s guilt is the only reasonable conclusion available on the totality of the evidence: R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 S.C.R. 1000, at para. 55. In Villaroman, at para. 35, the Supreme Court held that “[i]n assessing circumstantial evidence, inferences consistent with innocence do not have to arise from proven facts” because such a requirement wrongly puts an obligation on an accused to prove facts. A gap in the evidence may result in inferences other than guilt. However, “those inferences must be reasonable given the evidence and the absence of evidence, assessed logically, and in light of human experience and common sense”: Villaroman, at para. 36. If reasonable inferences other than guilt are available, the Crown’s evidence does not meet the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Other plausible theories or other reasonable possibilities must be based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence of evidence, not on speculation.
6The line between a plausible theory and speculation is not always easy to draw: “The basic question is whether the circumstantial evidence viewed logically and in light of human experience is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that the accused is guilty”: Villaroman, at para. 38. In determining whether the Crown has met the burden in a circumstantial evidence case, the jury may apply its logic and common sense to the totality of the evidentiary picture, including gaps in that picture, and consider whether other reasonable possibilities not only exist, but preclude a finding that an inference of guilt is the only reasonable inference available: R. v. Ali, 2021 ONCA 362, at para. 98.
Possession for the Purposes of Trafficking
7For Mr. Stafford to be found guilty of possession of a controlled substance for the purposes of trafficking, the Crown must prove each of the following essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt:
(a) The substance was a controlled substance;
(b) The Defendant was in possession of the substance;
(c) The Defendant knew the nature of the substance; and
(d) The Defendant possessed the substance for the purpose of trafficking.
8Under s. 4(3) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the “Code”) possession includes personal possession, constructive possession and joint possession. Were personal possession is alleged, an accused must be aware: (i) that they have physical custody of the thing alleged; and (ii) what the thing is. Both elements must co-exist with an act of control: R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253, at para. 16. Control means that the person has some power or authority over the substance, whether or not they used that power or authority: R. v. Pham, 2006 SCC 26, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 940, affirming (2005), 2005 44671 (ON CA), 203 C.C.C. (3d) 326 (ONCA).
9Constructive possession is established when an accused does not have physical custody of the thing but has it in any place for their own or another's use or benefit: Code, s. 4(3)(a)(ii). Constructive possession is complete where an accused:
(a) has knowledge of the character of the object;
(b) knowingly puts or keeps the object in a particular place, irrespective of whether the place belongs to or is occupied by the accused; and
(c) intends to have the object in the place for the use or benefit of the accused or of another person.
Morelli, at para. 17.
10Possession cannot be presumed from residency, tenancy, or occupancy of a place: R. v. Lights, 2020 ONCA 128, at para. 50; R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560, at para. 19.
11Knowledge includes actual knowledge and wilful blindness. Wilful blindness involves a degree of awareness of the likely existence of the prohibited circumstances together with a blameworthy conscious refusal of self-enlightenment: Lights, at para. 52.
The Parties’ Positions
12The Crown takes the position that based on the totality of the evidence, there is no reasonable inference other than that Mr. Stafford had knowledge and control of the fentanyl and cocaine found in the vehicle. If he was not in personal possession of the controlled substances, he was in constructive possession of them. The Crown argues that given the value of the drugs, which was over $20,000, it is highly unlikely that anyone would have hidden the drugs in the vehicle without Mr. Stafford’s knowledge.
13The defence’s position is that the Crown has failed to meet its burden of establishing Mr. Stafford’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt because there are reasonable inferences other than guilt. The defence argues that because individuals other than Mr. Stafford had access to and used the vehicle, they could have concealed the fentanyl and cocaine in the hidden compartment without Mr. Stafford’s knowledge.
Evidence
Admitted Facts
14Mr. Stafford admitted the following facts under s. 655 of the Criminal Code:
(a) The matter before the court stems from a shooting inside Yorkdale Mall on August 29, 2021;
(b) After the shooting, Mr. Stafford returned to the vehicle in which he had arrived, a Nissan Altima with license plate CPXB 010 (the “Altima”). The individuals he arrived with were no longer with him. He boarded the Altima as the sole occupant and attempted to exit the Yorkdale parking lot;
(c) The parking lot was chaotic – traffic was jammed with vehicles attempting to leave the area;
(d) When he got stuck in the traffic jam, Mr. Stafford abandoned the Altima in a live lane of traffic and left the area on foot;
(e) The police sealed, seized, and towed the Altima to the Forensic Services Unit and obtained a warrant to search the Altima;
(f) Upon execution of the search warrant, police found the following narcotics within a trap near the driver seat footwell of the Altima:
(i) a 19.25 grams of powder cocaine;
(ii) 1.6 grams of purple fentanyl cut with caffeine;
(iii) 29.1 grams of green fentanyl cut with caffeine and lidocaine;
(iv) 25.27 grams of green fentanyl cut with lidocaine and caffeine; and
(v) 29.13 grams of green fentanyl cut with lidocaine and caffeine.
(g) Samples from the seized narcotics were tested and the nature of substances was confirmed;
(h) Approximately 84.3 grams of fentanyl was seized. A single gram of fentanyl can produce up to 10 doses, so 84.3 grams of fentanyl could produce up to 843 doses. A gram of fentanyl in 2021 was selling at the street level for roughly $160 to $240. If sold at the gram level, 84.3 grams would be worth between $13,488 and $20,232;
(i) Approximately 19.25 grams of powder cocaine was seized. A single gram of powder cocaine can produce roughly 10 to 20 doses, so 19.25 grams of powder cocaine could produce 192 to 385 doses. A gram of powder cocaine can sell at the street level for roughly $80 to $110. If sold at the gram level, 19.25 grams would be worth between $1,540 and $2,117.50.
(j) If possession is proven, it is admitted that the purpose of the possession of the total cocaine (19.25 grams) and total fentanyl (85.4 grams) was “for trafficking”;
(k) There are no issues with respect to continuity of the exhibits after they were seized by the police;
(l) Mr. Stafford's DNA was found on a baseball hat and juice bottle found inside the Altima;
(m)The Altima was registered to 2754627 Ontario Incorporated located at 20 Alness Street in North York, a business registered to William Sinclair;
(n) Four months earlier, on April 19, 2021, Mr. Stafford was seen by police driving a Nissan Rogue with license plate CHPY 945, which was registered to 2456289 Ontario Incorporated, located at 20 Alness Street in North York, a business that was also registered to Sinclair;
(o) On April 21, 2021, police saw Mr. Stafford return the Nissan Rogue to 20 Alness Street and drive away in a grey Hyundai Tucson with the license plate CKXP 851. The Tucson was also registered to 2456289 Ontario Incorporated, at 20 Alness Street in North York, the company owned by Sinclair;
(p) At 11:52 a.m. on August 29, 20211 surveillance video for the housing complex around 51 Morecambe Street, Toronto captures the Altima backing into a parking spot. Mr. Stafford, the sole occupant and driver of the car is captured exiting the parked car and walking to a townhouse in the housing complex (“the Morecambe complex”);
(q) At 1:04 p.m. on August 29, 2021, surveillance video for the Morecambe complex captures Mr. Stafford and an unknown male walking toward the Altima. Both individuals board the Altima and Mr. Stafford drives it away;
(r) Mr. Stafford is not seen carrying anything in his hands on either video;
(s) On August 31, 2021, Detective Jason Taylor of the Guns and Gangs Task Force attended a car rental company located at 20 Alness Street and spoke with the owner, William Sinclair;
(t) Mr. Sinclair provided Det. Taylor a copy of a rental agreement for the Altima. It stated that the car was rented on August 24, 2021 by a female named Esra Basha, who resided at an address on Ellesmere Avenue; and
(u) Det. Taylor testified at the preliminary inquiry that he was familiar with Sinclair’s rental company as he had seen vehicles from the company used “in his investigations.”
The Crown’s Evidence
Mr. Stafford’s use of the Altima
15The Crown called Madison Tait as a witness. In August 2021, Ms. Tait was in a relationship with Mr. Stafford, which she described as “complicated” and on-again, off-again. She testified that she met Mr. Stafford some time in 2020 and that she last spoke to him in 2023 when their relationship ended.
16Ms. Tait testified that on August 24, 2021, she picked the Altima up from an individual she believed was Mr. Stafford’s friend. She did not recall who the individual was. Ms. Tait testified that Mr. Stafford had asked her to pick up the vehicle from a friend and drive it to Sudbury to come and get him. Mr. Stafford had his wisdom teeth removed in Sudbury and was recovering there. Ms. Tait testified that at the time, she had her own vehicle but did not want to drive it to Sudbury. She did not know who the Altima belonged to and did not ask any questions about it.
17Ms. Tait testified that as requested, she drove the Altima to Sudbury to a cottage where Mr. Stafford was staying with other people whom she did not know. Because she did not want to stay at the cottage, she booked a room at the Hampton Inn and she and Mr. Stafford went to stay there. A receipt from the Hampton Inn shows that they stayed there from August 24-26, 2021 and left on August 27. Ms. Tait testified that while they were staying at the Hampton Inn, she and Mr. Stafford did not go anywhere and did not drive the Altima because Mr. Stafford was still recovering. She testified that a few people visited Mr. Stafford at the Hampton Inn but she did not know who they were. She did not speak to them and “kept to [her]self”. Ms. Tait testified that the visitors asked to use and accessed the Altima. She testified that she had given the keys to Mr. Stafford after arriving in Sudbury and did not keep track of them because it was not her car.
18Ms. Tait testified that after leaving Sudbury on August 27, 2021, she drove the Altima back to her home in Ajax, with Mr. Stafford as the passenger. Mr. Tait testified that Mr. Stafford stayed with her after their return, and left her home on the morning of August 29, 2021.
19Ms. Tait testified that Mr. Stafford frequently drove different cars but that they were usually black, and she did not pay attention to what make or model they were. Ms. Tait did not ask Mr. Stafford about why he drove different cars.
20Ms. Tait denied that the fentanyl and cocaine found in the Altima were hers. Neither the Crown nor the defence made any suggestion that Ms. Tait was in possession of the drugs or that she was the person who hid them in the vehicle.
21Ms. Tait testified that she never saw Mr. Stafford with fentanyl or cocaine, and that she never saw him selling drugs, whether between August 24-29, 2021 or otherwise. Ms. Tait testified that she and Mr. Stafford were “always” together doing things like going to dinner or to the movies. However, she also admitted that their relationship was on-again, off-again, that she sometimes did not see Mr. Stafford for long periods of time and that she did not always know what was going on in his life. I understand Ms. Tait’s evidence to mean that they were “always” together when they were “on” but not when they were “off”.
22Ms. Tait did not have a detailed recollection of the relevant time period in August 2021. At first, she testified that she drove to Sudbury in her own vehicle and did not readily admit that she stayed there with Mr. Stafford. Even after being shown the bill for the room at the Hampton Inn, Ms. Tait stated that she did not really remember when she was in Sudbury. She admitted that she did not remember details from four years ago very well and that she had “blocked off a lot” of that part of her life. Ms. Tait could not recall how many people came to visit Mr. Stafford at the hotel. Ms. Tait could not recall where or from whom she picked up the Altima. Ms. Tait denied that certain items found in the Altima belonged to her, including an iridescent pouch that contained her driver’s licence. She denied that other contents of the pouch, including a vape pen and key, belonged to her. The fact that Ms. Tait was vague and not initially forthright in her evidence in chief raises some concerns about the reliability and credibility of her evidence. However, as the Crown conceded, Ms. Tait eventually gave honest testimony about driving the Altima and staying with Mr. Stafford in Sudbury.
23The individual whose name appears on the rental agreement for the Altima is Esra Basha. Ms. Basha testified that in August 2021, she was renting vehicles for people who contacted her through social media in exchange for money. She could not recall how much she was paid. Ms. Basha testified that at the time, she was binge drinking and partying on a daily basis. She testified that she did not know Mr. Stafford and did not know for what purpose the rented vehicles were used. Ms. Basha denied any knowledge that the vehicles she rented for others were involved in drug trafficking. Ms. Basha subsequently changed her lifestyle, pursued her education and found stable employment. I found Ms. Basha to be a credible witness. She was candid about her conduct in August 2021 even though it did not portray her in a positive light. Neither the Crown nor the defence suggested that the drugs found in the Altima belonged to Ms. Basha.
The August 29, 2021 shooting at Yorkdale Mall
24The Crown also called Detective Constable Matt Vukovic as a witness. In August 2021, DC Vukovic was a member of the TPS Guns and Gangs Team. He testified that he received a call from dispatch at approximately 3:40 p.m. on August 29, 2021 about a shooting at the Yorkdale Mall and went to investigate.
25A compilation video was created by the TPS from surveillance video from the Yorkdale Mall. The compilation video follows Mr. Stafford and the two men with him that day, as well as Brandon Neliko, who was involved in the shooting. I find DC Vukovic’s evidence, which largely related to the steps taken in the investigation and the video surveillance evidence, was both credible and reliable.
26It is undisputed that Mr. Stafford arrived at the Yorkdale Mall that day with a person named Owusu and another unidentified individual male. It is admitted that before going to Yorkdale, Mr. Stafford arrived at the Morecambe complex alone at approximately 11:52 a.m. He picked up Mr. Owusu and drove away from the Morecambe complex at 1:04 p.m. When the Altima arrived at Yorkdale at 1:50 p.m., a third unknown male was in the rear passenger seat of the vehicle. The timeline is consistent with Mr. Stafford picking up the unidentified male and then going to Yorkdale, which would generally take approximately 20 to 25 minutes from the Morecambe complex without traffic.
27The surveillance video shows that Mr. Stafford was wearing a distinctive black and white Chicago Bulls baseball cap and a T-shirt with a square logo on the chest area and a larger square logo on the back. He was carrying a bag. Mr. Owusu was wearing a red T-shirt.
28At approximately 3:30 p.m., an individual in a red track suit, later identified as Mr. Neliko, pulled out a gun and shot toward Mr. Stafford and the two other men as they passed each other. It is undisputed that Mr. Owusu also pulled out a firearm and returned fire. Mr. Stafford and Mr. Owusu fled in the same direction through the mall. The unidentified male fled separately through a store.
29Surveillance video shows Mr. Stafford and Mr. Owusu running around the parking lot looking for the Altima. Mr. Owusu then ran in a different direction.
30Mr. Stafford eventually located and got into the Altima alone. Because of the confusion and chaos of the shooting, however, the Altima became stuck in traffic on the road exiting the mall. Mr. Stafford abandoned the Altima in a live lane of traffic in the parking lot of the mall, then walked toward and entered the Yorkdale TTC station.
31Mr. Owusu was arrested on the street under Highway 401. Based on information that Mr. Owusu was a known member of a street gang, DC Vukovic reached out to another officer from 42 Division for assistance in identifying the individuals who had been with Mr. Owusu. The individual in the Chicago Bulls hat was identified as Mr. Stafford.
The search of the Altima
32On August 31, and September 1, 2021, DC Aimee Rousseau of the TPS Forensic Investigation Services (“FIS”) executed a search warrant on the Altima. She took all of the photos of the exterior, interior and items located in the vehicle. DC Rousseau testified that the search took approximately eleven hours to complete over two days.
33I find DC Rousseau’s evidence to be both credible and reliable. She was a careful witness who acknowledged the limitations of her examination and avoided overstating any conclusions she reached.
34On the floor under the driver seat, DC Rousseau located the Chicago Bulls baseball cap that Mr. Stafford was seen wearing on the surveillance video.
35There were various items of clothing and drinking containers in the front passenger seat area and floor. In the glove box, DC Rousseau located a prescription pill bottle with Mr. Stafford’s name on it, a package of wipes and a digital scale box. The front console contained various items, including multiple Ziploc-type bags, a bank card with no name, a receipt from Shoppers Drug Mart and many cigarette or marijuana butts.
36In the backseat, DC Rousseau located, among other items, a blanket, various items of male and female clothing and a bill for the Hampton Inn hotel room. In the trunk of the Altima, DC Rousseau located garbage bags with clothes and various other items including the following:
A bulletproof vest;
Cell phones;
A cell phone bill issued in Sudbury on August 19, 2021 in the name of Reggie Mack;
Cash deposit receipts for four accounts at the TD Bank, made at an unknown location for hundreds of dollars in $20 bills (total of $1,810);
Shoe boxes with two pairs of men’s shoes in the trunk of the Altima, a receipt for one of the pairs of shoes shows that it was purchased at Fairview Mall on July 15, 2021;
A receipt for items, including three drinks and condoms, purchased at a Shoppers Drug Mart in Ajax at 1:26 a.m. on August 29, 2021;
Receipts for two “Chatr” pay-as-you-go cell phone plans purchased at a Petro Canada on August 25, 2021 at 22:11 (the “Chatr receipts”);
37On the second day of the search, DC Rousseau was doing a final search of the vehicle when she noticed that a panel in the footwell of the driver’s seat appeared to be loose. DC Rousseau testified the panel was loose and warped, and she could slide her fingers underneath it. When she put her hand in underneath the panel, two plastic bags fell out. One contained a white substance and one contained a purple substance. She lay down on the floor of the vehicle and saw further items with her flashlight. DC Rousseau then pulled out two baggies containing a green substance. The white substance was eventually identified as powder cocaine. The purple and green substances were identified as fentanyl.
38Before beginning the search, DC Rousseau had fingerprinted the exterior of the vehicle. The only result identified was a fingerprint of Mr. Owusu found on the rear passenger window of the driver’s side of the vehicle. No fingerprints were located on the panel in the driver side footwell where the drugs were located. DC Rousseau testified that there were various reasons why no fingerprints were located on the panel including the textured material of the panel, the possibility that gloves were used to handle the panel, and the possibility that any fingerprints were removed.
39DC Rousseau sent various samples to CFS for DNA analysis. It is undisputed that Mr. Stafford’s DNA was found on the Bulls hat and a juice bottle. No DNA samples were taken from the cigarette butts or other items in the vehicle that could potentially have yielded a DNA sample.
40The defence called no evidence.
Findings
41I find that the Crown has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stafford had personal or constructive possession of the controlled substances.
42There is a significant amount of evidence connecting Mr. Stafford to the Altima:
Mr. Stafford asked Ms. Tait to pick the Altima up from a friend and drive it to Sudbury to come and get him;
Mr. Stafford was the driver of the Altima on August 29, 2021. He drove it to the Morecambe complex and then to the Yorkdale Mall. He had the car keys, as evidenced by his returning to the vehicle after the shooting;
Mr. Stafford’s DNA was found on the Chicago Bulls hat and a juice bottle in the Altima;
A pill bottle with a prescription in Mr. Stafford’s name, dated August 12, 2021 and filled in Sudbury, was found in the glove box; and
The many personal items and multiple pieces of clothing found in the Altima were consistent with Mr. Stafford and Ms. Tait’s use of the Altima from August 24-27, 2021.
43The Altima was rented under circumstances from which it would be reasonable to infer that the identity of the person renting the vehicle was intended to be concealed. The Altima was rented from a car rental agency that had been involved in other police investigations and was rented by a third party, Ms. Basha, who was paid cash for renting the car in her name.
44However, the fact that Mr. Stafford was the driver of the Altima on August 29, 2021 is insufficient, on its own, to demonstrate the requisite physical custody and control of the seized substances. There is no presumption that because Mr. Stafford was the operator of the vehicle, he had knowledge and control of its contents, in the absence of evidence to the contrary: R. v. Lincoln, 2012 ONCA 542, at para. 3; R. v. Ortega, 2021 ONSC 4986.
45Based on the location of the drugs, I find that Mr. Stafford could not have known that they were in the vehicle simply by virtue of being the driver of the Altima. The narcotics were not in plain view and were hidden in a concealed compartment in the footwell of the driver’s seat. The drugs were located by DC Rousseau only at the end of an 11-hour search when she observed that the panel in the driver side footwell appeared to be loose. She had to remove the panel to locate the narcotics.
46Moreover, there is a lack of forensic evidence, such as fingerprints or DNA evidence, connecting Mr. Stafford to the fentanyl and cocaine. DC Rousseau testified that while it is possible to obtain fingerprints from a plastic bag, she has not successfully done so in the past because it is dependent on factors such as the person’s body chemistry or whether the bag was “overhandled”.
47There is a complete lack of evidence as to how and when the fentanyl and cocaine were put in the hidden compartment of the Altima. The video surveillance evidence and Det. Taylor’s observations from August 29, 2021 do not assist in determining when the drugs were put in the Altima. There is also a lack of evidence as to whether the Altima was used, by whom and where, between its return from Sudbury on August 27, 2021 to when it was first seen at the Morecambe complex on August 29, 2021.
48Based on the evidence, I find that it is reasonable to infer that people other than Mr. Stafford and Ms. Tait had access to the Altima.
49First, Ms. Tait testified that while they were in Sudbury, she and Mr. Stafford stayed in the hotel room and did not drive the Altima. She further testified that other individuals who visited Mr. Stafford accessed and used the Altima during that time. While I have expressed some concerns about Ms. Tait’s evidence, her testimony that she and Mr. Stafford stayed in the hotel room is consistent with Mr. Stafford recovering from dental surgery and was not seriously challenged. Moreover, once she admitted that she drove the Altima to Sudbury and stayed with Mr. Stafford there, there was no reason for her to fabricate this evidence.
50Second, the Chatr receipts found in the Altima were dated August 25, 2021, which was during the time period that Ms. Tait and Mr. Stafford did not leave the hotel room. The Chatr receipts support an inference that someone other than Mr. Stafford used the Altima in Sudbury and brought items into it.
51Third, documents with the names of other individuals were located in the Altima, including a vehicle ownership registration and insurance document for an Audi in the name of Ren Haodong and a cell phone bill in the name of Reggie Mack. There was no evidence to suggest that those names were aliases used by Mr. Stafford.
52Finally, Ms. Tait picked up the Altima from a man she believed to be Mr. Stafford’s friend. This man also had access to the vehicle and could have left or put items in it. Ms. Basha and Ms. Tait also had access to the Altima, although the defence makes no suggestion that either of them hid the drugs in the vehicle.
53As a result, contrary to the Crown’s argument that Mr. Stafford brought all of the items found in the car into the Altima, it is not possible to find that all of the items found in the vehicle are attributable to him. I find that many of the items located in the Altima, such as the clothing and personal items, were brought into the vehicle by Mr. Stafford and Ms. Tait because they are consistent with their use of the vehicle for their stay in Sudbury. However, because other individuals had access to and used the Altima, some of the items could have been left there by them.
54This finding in turn impacts the Crown’s argument that certain indicia of drug trafficking and receipts showing multiple cash transactions found in the Altima are circumstantial evidence of Mr. Stafford’s involvement in drug trafficking. Based on my finding that individuals other than Mr. Stafford had access to the Altima, unless the items or receipts can be connected to Mr. Stafford, even though they might be circumstantial of drug trafficking, it cannot be inferred from those items that Mr. Stafford engaged in drug trafficking.
55Specifically, the multiple Ziploc-type baggies in the centre console of the vehicle and the digital scale box in the glove compartment could be circumstantial evidence that the Altima was used for the purpose of drug trafficking. However, given my finding that other individuals accessed the Altima, and the absence of evidence connecting those items to Mr. Stafford, I am not satisfied that he brought those items into the vehicle. I further note that, the circumstantial evidence of drug trafficking was limited; there was no digital scale or other indicia of drug trafficking, such as cutting agents or a debt list.
56Similarly, I accept that because drug transactions are generally conducted in cash, receipts reflecting multiple or large cash transactions could be circumstantial evidence of drug trafficking. Although there were TD Bank receipts showing large cash deposits in $20 bills to four separate bank accounts on August 12, 2021, there is an absence of evidence connecting those deposits or accounts to Mr. Stafford. Similarly, I have found that the Chatr receipts for pay-as-you-go plans were not brought into the vehicle by Mr. Stafford. As a result, it would not be reasonable to infer from the TD deposit receipts and Chatr receipts that Mr. Stafford engaged in drug trafficking.
57The two cash receipts that are connected to Mr. Stafford are the bill for the room at the Hampton Inn ($616.98) and the items purchased at Shoppers Drug Mart in Ajax ($22.12). The Shoppers Drug Mart receipt is for an amount that could commonly be paid in cash and is not circumstantial evidence that would reasonably lead to an inference of drug trafficking. The Hampton Inn bill is a large cash transaction and could be circumstantial evidence that would support an inference that Mr. Stafford was engaged in drug trafficking. It is, however, a single cash transaction.
58There is also an absence of surveillance or other evidence that Mr. Stafford engaged in drug trafficking. Det. Vukovic admitted that the only surveillance that the TPS had of Mr. Stafford was the video surveillance from the Morecambe complex, which showed Mr. Stafford leaving and returning to the Altima empty-handed, and the Yorkdale Mall surveillance, both on August 29, 2021. Ms. Tait’s evidence was that she never saw Mr. Stafford with fentanyl or cocaine and never observed him selling drugs. I do not place much weigh on this evidence, however, because Ms. Tait also admitted that there were significant periods during their relationship when she did not see Mr. Stafford and did not know what was going on with him.
59The evidence gathered during the course of the investigation suggests that police did not consider the possibility of other individuals having used the Altima. DC Rousseau admitted that none of the cigarette butts found in the front console were sent for DNA testing. In addition, Ms. Tait testified that the police only asked her about Mr. Stafford and his use of the Altima, and did not ask about other people’s use of Altima. In my view, the manner in which police conducted the investigation has left gaps in the evidence.
60Having found that individuals other than Mr. Stafford had access to and used the Altima, a reasonable alternative inference is that someone other than Mr. Stafford could have put the drugs in the vehicle. The next question is whether, in those circumstances, it is reasonable to infer that Mr. Stafford lacked knowledge that the drugs were put in the vehicle.
61The defence argues that a reasonable alternative inference is that one of the people who used the Altima in Sudbury concealed the drugs in the compartment, which were then to be retrieved by the person from whom Ms. Tait picked up the car when the car was to be returned.
62The Crown’s position is that even if another person put the drugs in the Altima, the only reasonable inference is that it was with Mr. Stafford’s knowledge. The Crown argues that it is not reasonable to infer that someone hid drugs of such significant value in the vehicle without telling Mr. Stafford and that he was unknowingly transporting the drugs back to Toronto, where someone would have to retrieve them.
63In my view, based on the totality of the evidence, it is not purely speculative that someone other than Mr. Stafford hid the drugs in the Altima without his knowledge. By virtue of the use of the Altima by multiple other people, there was a real possibility that someone other than Mr. Stafford put the drugs in the vehicle. In addition, Mr. Stafford did not rent the Altima and would have to return the vehicle to the person from whom Ms. Tait had obtained it. That individual, knowing that the Altima would be returning from Sudbury to Toronto, could have arranged for the drugs to be hidden in the vehicle, to be retrieved on the vehicle’s return. That person would have no reason to expect that the Altima would ultimately be abandoned in the Yorkdale parking lot.
64The defence further suggests that given DC Taylor’s evidence that the car rental company had been involved in other police investigations, another available inference is that a previous renter of the vehicle left the drugs in it, and the drugs were missed by police on a previous occasion. I do not find this inference to be reasonable. First, while it is possible that the drugs were inadvertently left behind by a previous renter, given the value of the drugs, I find this highly unlikely. Had someone left the drugs in the hidden compartment, it is more likely that the owner of the drugs would have sought to retrieve them. Second, there is no evidence that the vehicle was previously searched.
65The Crown and defence argue competing inferences from Mr. Stafford’s abandonment of the Altima after the shooting.
66The Crown submits that Mr. Stafford abandoned the Altima and fled on foot to distance himself from the car and, therefore, the drugs that he knew were hidden in the car. The Crown’s theory is that Mr. Stafford knew that based on the video surveillance, the police would connect one of the shooters with the Altima and that he could be arrested in the vehicle. The Crown takes the position that Mr. Stafford ultimately assessed that it would be better to cut his losses and lose the drugs, despite their value, rather than be discovered in the Altima with them. The Crown submits that it is therefore reasonable to infer that Mr. Stafford had knowledge of the fentanyl and cocaine in the vehicle.
67The Crown further argues that when Mr. Stafford abandoned the Altima, he left the distinctive Chicago Bulls hat behind and did not take the drugs with him because he knew would be readily identifiable and did not want to be arrested, while fleeing on foot, with the drugs in his possession.
68The defence argues that given their significant value, if the drugs belonged to Mr. Stafford or if he had knowledge that the drugs were in the Altima, he would have retrieved them before fleeing on foot.
69The defence further argues that had Mr. Stafford known about the fentanyl and cocaine in the Altima, he would not have discarded the Bulls hat in the vehicle. The defence’s position is that the fact that Mr. Stafford left the Bulls hat in the Altima supports an inference that he did not know about the fentanyl and cocaine in the vehicle because he knew that the Bulls hat would connect him to the Altima and, ultimately, the concealed narcotics.
70In my view, it is difficult to draw inferences about Mr. Stafford’s knowledge of the drugs in the Altima from his behaviour after the shooting. Because he was with Mr. Owusu, who discharged a firearm, Mr. Stafford’s actions after the shooting would have been primarily influenced by his desire to leave the Yorkdale Mall area as quickly as possible and to avoid detection by the police as someone connected to the shooting. In addition, as far as Mr. Stafford knew, the individual who shot at him and Mr. Owusu was still at large. He would also have wanted to avoid detection by that person.
71Mr. Stafford abandoned the Altima when he became stuck in the post-shooting chaos and traffic and was unable to leave the area. As a result, his knowledge of the concealed narcotics is not the only reasonable inference from his abandonment of the Altima.
72Similarly, Mr. Stafford left behind the Bulls hat that he had been wearing throughout his time in the mall because it made him readily identifiable to both police and Mr. Neliko as one of the individuals who was with Mr. Owusu at the time of the shooting. Although I find that the act of leaving the Bulls hat had more to do with avoiding detection, as the defence submits, leaving the hat is also inconsistent with an inference that Mr. Stafford sought to distance himself from the Altima, and therefore the drugs.
73In addition, given the significant value of the fentanyl and cocaine, I find that had Mr. Stafford known that they were in the Altima, it is unlikely that he would have left them behind. If the drugs belonged to him, leaving them behind would have resulted in a significant financial loss. If the drugs did not belong to him, he had been entrusted to transport them and would have to account for their loss. I find it speculative to infer, as the Crown suggests, that Mr. Stafford did not take the drugs with him when he abandoned the Altima to flee on foot because he was aware that police would be looking for him and that he could be arrested with them. The evidence is that after the shooting, the Yorkdale Mall was chaotic, with people and cars everywhere, attempting to flee. Mr. Stafford had removed the Bulls hat that would make him readily identifiable. In the end, Mr. Stafford was able to leave the area undetected by police.
74Moreover, I find that Mr. Stafford had more than enough time to retrieve the drugs from the hidden compartment, which was accessible from the driver’s seat. He was in the Altima for at least 12 minutes, from the time he got into it and when he abandoned it, during which he could have removed the drugs and put them in his bag. Although Mr. Stafford was driving, the traffic was completely stuck and the video surveillance shows that at some point, Mr. Stafford exited the vehicle for a couple of minutes and then returned to it.
75Based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence and the absence of evidence, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stafford had knowledge of the drugs hidden in the Altima. I find that the circumstantial evidence is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other than that Mr. Stafford is guilty, particularly in light of the gaps in the evidence arising from the manner in which the police investigated this case as it pertains to other people’s access and use of the vehicle. While it is improbable that someone put the drugs in the vehicle without informing Mr. Stafford, it is not enough that Mr. Stafford probably knew that the drugs were there. Nevertheless, I find that it is reasonably possible that an individual other than Mr. Stafford hid the drugs in the Altima without his knowledge. I have already found that between August 24 to 29, 2021, individuals other than Mr. Stafford and Ms. Tait had access to and used the vehicle. It is reasonably possible someone hid the drugs in the Altima without Mr. Stafford’s knowledge for someone else to retrieve, before its return to the rental company.
76Based on the foregoing analysis, in my view, the Crown has failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Stafford had knowledge and control of the controlled substances. Mr. Stafford is found not guilty of the charges for possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.
Conclusion
77Accordingly, Mr. Stafford is found not guilty of Counts 1 and 2 on the indictment.
“Nishikawa J.”
Released: January 16, 2026