Steve A. Coroza

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentence for trafficking in cocaine, possession of the proceeds of crime, offering to sell cocaine, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

At trial, the appellant's primary defence was mistaken identification, claiming he did not sell drugs to the undercover officer and offering exculpatory explanations for circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's appreciation of the evidence or legal analysis, noting the trial judge's conclusions were reasonable and grounded in the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's lengthy record, and the paramount considerations of denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the offence was not known to law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting that previous binding decisions had already rejected this argument and confirmed the offence remained in full force and effect.

The court also found no merit in the appellant's arguments regarding the Crown's exercise of discretion and the trial judge's refusal to hear a late Charter argument.