Tessa Moran

The applicant was charged with drug and firearm offences following police searches of a residence and motor vehicles that yielded fentanyl, cocaine, a handgun, ammunition, and cash.

The applicant challenged the validity of the search warrants through a Garofoli review, arguing that the information to obtain (ITO) contained material omissions and misrepresentations that would have prevented the warrants from issuing.

The court conducted a detailed review of the ITO, made various corrections through excision and addition of information, and ultimately found that the corrected ITO provided a sufficient basis for the warrants to have issued.

The court found no deliberate misleading or recklessness by the affiant and upheld the warrants, making the evidence admissible at trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery and possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking arising from a home invasion on December 5, 2022.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day followed by 3 years probation, with conditions including house arrest (with limited exceptions), electronic supervision for the first year, 50 hours of community service, and participation in counselling and rehabilitative programs.

The court considered the accused's youth (19 at time of offence), lack of prior criminal record, 981 days on strict bail conditions with GPS monitoring, systemic racism and anti-Black racism, prospects for rehabilitation, and the seriousness of the offences including the presence and discharge of a firearm and the significant quantity of Fentanyl.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Douglas Irwin to 6.5 years (78 months) imprisonment for possession of 56.2 grams of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, with an additional consecutive 1-month sentence for failing to attend court for judgment.

The court considered the serious nature of the offence, the high monetary value and quantity of Fentanyl involved, and the opioid crisis impact.

Mitigating factors included Mr. Irwin’s addiction, his willingness to seek treatment, and his personal circumstances.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code, DNA sampling, and forfeiture of seized items.

The decision reflects the balance between denunciation, deterrence, and individualized sentencing principles.

Daniel Hastings was found guilty of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a four-year custodial sentence, while the defence requested a two-year conditional sentence.

The court considered the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking, the offender's lengthy criminal record, and significant mitigating factors including his first trafficking conviction, low-level involvement, and substantial rehabilitation efforts since the offence.

The court found exceptional circumstances, including the offender's commitment to sobriety, employment, and community involvement, justified a conditional sentence.

A global sentence of two years less a day conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, was imposed, along with ancillary orders.

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.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exclude evidence (cocaine, money, cell phones) seized incident to his arrest, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the arresting officer's testimony unreliable and incredible, concluding that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and failed to promptly inform the accused of the reasons for his arrest.

Consequently, the search incident to arrest was unlawful.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court determined that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's rights warranted the exclusion of the evidence, as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.