Sophina James

Gianluca Salvati was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking offences (cocaine, fentanyl, crack cocaine), possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of recognizance following a judge-alone trial.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his extensive criminal record, the significant quantity of drugs (including fentanyl with a street value up to $20,600), and his limited potential for rehabilitation.

Mitigating factors were minimal.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the defence sought five years.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for lockdowns and COVID-19 conditions.

The Crown applied for an order permitting three designated undercover officers to testify remotely while wearing partial face masks during a preliminary hearing.

The Crown argued this was necessary due to the security risk posed by the ease of digital image capture in Zoom hearings, which could compromise the officers' anonymity and future undercover work in investigations involving criminal organizations.

Two defendants opposed, arguing existing protections were sufficient and that masks could hinder credibility assessment.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding the identified security risk was real and that the proposed measure balanced witness safety with the defendants' rights, noting that facial demeanor is of little value in preliminary hearings and that in-person witnesses during the pandemic often wear masks.

The accused was charged with offering to transfer a firearm and offering to traffic in cocaine based on intercepted telephone calls and text messages.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony on coded language to argue the accused made genuine offers.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the jurisdictional averment that the offences occurred in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held the intercepted communications only showed the accused acting as a conduit for information, not making a genuine offer to transfer a firearm or sell cocaine.

The accused was acquitted.

Ian Bullens was found guilty after trial by jury of offering to transfer a firearm and subsequently found guilty by judge alone of breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The court considered his extensive criminal record, prior firearm offences, and acknowledged opiate addiction.

The Crown sought a sentence in the range of 8 to 10 years, while the defence proposed 4.5 to 5.5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, which was reduced to 5 years and 8 months after applying 22 months of pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearm prohibition and a DNA collection order.

Dorrin Chang was found guilty by a jury of two counts of trafficking firearms and three counts of drug offenses (trafficking heroin, possession for the purpose of trafficking heroin, and possession of hydromorphone).

He failed to attend sentencing and was sentenced in absentia.

The court considered his criminal record, the nature of the offenses, and sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

A total sentence of 9 years incarceration was imposed, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

The offenders, both members of the 'Young Buck Killas' street gang, were convicted of various firearms and drug trafficking offences committed for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of their extensive criminal records, gang affiliation, and the nationwide scope of the drug enterprise against minimal mitigating factors.

The court sentenced one offender to 12 years and 1 month and the other to 28 months, after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered delayed parole eligibility for both offenders, requiring them to serve at least half of their sentences.

During a criminal trial for firearms and criminal organization offences, the court ruled on several evidentiary and procedural applications.

The court denied the accused's requests to sit at counsel table rather than the prisoner's dock, citing security concerns and courtroom configuration.

The court admitted voice messages retrieved from an accused's phone that demonstrated a willingness to commit robbery, finding them highly probative of gang association.

The court also delivered mixed rulings on the admissibility of intercepted communications used for voice identification, admitting one as circumstantial evidence of state of mind while excluding others.

The accused pleaded guilty to seven "guns and gangs" related offences arising from a specific incident in Hamilton.

The Crown and defence made a joint submission for a 4.5-year sentence but disagreed on pre-trial custody credit.

The court imposed the joint submission of 4.5 years and granted 1.25 days credit for each day served in pre-trial custody (approximately 32 months), resulting in 22 months remaining to be served in the provincial system rather than the penitentiary system.

This is a ruling on committal for trial following a three-month preliminary inquiry into Project Marvel, a police investigation into drug and firearm trafficking by members of a criminal organization known as the Young Buck Killers (YBK).

Nine defendants faced sixty-four counts including trafficking and possession of cocaine and other drugs, trafficking and possession of firearms, and conspiracy charges.

The Crown alleged that most defendants committed these offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the YBK criminal organization.

The court applied the test for committal established in R. v. Arcuri, requiring that there be admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit most defendants to trial on the charges, though some counts were discharged where the evidence was insufficient or speculative.

The court's analysis focused on whether the predicate offences were sufficiently connected to the criminal organization and whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.