S. Montefiore

The accused was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence agreed on a joint submission of four years' imprisonment but disagreed on whether the accused should receive pre-sentence custody credit for time spent in custody on separate, outstanding charges in another jurisdiction.

The court accepted the joint submission of four years but declined to grant credit for the time served on the outstanding charges, holding that such credit should be determined when those specific charges are resolved.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

On a blended voir dire, the accused alleged that his warrantless arrest and subsequent search violated his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking exclusion of the heroin under s. 24(2).

The court found that the arresting officer had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused based on surveillance observations of a suspected drug transaction.

Consequently, there were no Charter violations.

The court further held that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the officer acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable and essential.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for fraud over $5000 arising from a tax refund scheme involving falsified charitable donation receipts.

The offender, a tax preparer, filed 26 fraudulent returns over three taxation years, generating approximately $129,381 in improper refunds, though his personal gain was estimated at about $31,500.

The defence sought a conditional sentence while the Crown requested a custodial term.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary objectives for mid‑range fraud of this scale and that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing under ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

A custodial sentence followed by probation was imposed.