Taylor Ormond

The defendants were jointly charged with possession of fentanyl and p-Fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove possession.

The court found that the primary tenant had constructive possession of the drugs based on his connection to the apartment, a backpack containing drugs, and hidden cash.

However, the court acquitted the co-accused, who was found sleeping in the apartment during the raid, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove he had knowledge or control of the drugs or a prohibited weapon found on the premises.

The co-accused was also acquitted of a breach of release order charge.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking and operating a conveyance while prohibited.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 4 to 5 years, while the defence sought 2 to 2.5 years, emphasizing the overly harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, including extensive lockdowns and triple bunking.

The court found that the Duncan and Marshall test was met, warranting a reduction in sentence.

The offender was sentenced to a global net term of 236 days in custody, after receiving enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

In a prosecution for possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, the Crown sought to qualify a police officer to give expert opinion evidence on drug trafficking practices.

Applying the Mohan threshold criteria and the White Burgess gatekeeper analysis, the court held that expert evidence concerning cocaine and fentanyl trafficking practices, including pricing, quantity, packaging, user consumption habits, purchase patterns, conduct, and indicia of trafficking, was logically relevant, necessary, and sufficiently reliable.

The officer's training and experience holistically established specialized knowledge outside the court's ordinary experience, and there was no realistic concern about impartiality.

However, the Crown failed to establish the relevance of proposed oxycodone evidence after staying the oxycodone charge.

The officer was therefore qualified only in relation to cocaine and fentanyl.

The accused brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 20.9 months (637 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court deducted 21 days for defence-caused delay but found no basis to deduct time for the COVID-19 pandemic without specific evidentiary foundation.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay or demonstrate that the case was particularly complex.

The court found a breach of the accused's s. 11(b) Charter right and entered a stay of proceedings.

During a trial for second-degree murder, the accused applied to introduce character evidence of the deceased to support a claim of self-defence.

The accused had shot the deceased, who was attempting to steal his truck, and claimed the deceased made a threatening gesture as if holding a gun.

The proposed evidence included the deceased's prior convictions for fleeing police, outstanding property charges, a withdrawn assault charge, and photographs of the deceased with weapons.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence did not demonstrate a propensity for violence or the use of weapons, and its admission would not legitimately assist the jury while risking prejudice.