Tim McCann

Christa Hier pleaded guilty to possession of 118 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Ontario Court of Justice imposed a sentence balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, resulting in a total sentence of six and a half years: 12 months credited as served with 18 months credit, plus five years custody.

The decision highlights the significant community impact of fentanyl trafficking in Pembroke, the offender’s history of addiction and trauma, and the importance of individualized sentencing that considers both public safety and rehabilitative potential.

The Ontario Court of Justice found that the police lacked objectively reasonable grounds to arrest Blake Correia and Tabatha Hamilton for possession for the purpose of trafficking, resulting in breaches of their section 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court excluded all evidence seized pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, including cocaine, methamphetamine, and other items.

The decision emphasizes the necessity for specific and detailed evidence regarding police experience and the factual basis for reasonable grounds to arrest, particularly in drug trafficking investigations involving surveillance.

The offenders, who worked as cleaners in a medical office, were convicted of forging prescriptions for opioids and possessing fentanyl and oxycodone.

Both offenders suffered from severe opioid addictions.

The Crown sought custodial sentences of 9 to 12 months, while the defence sought conditional discharges.

The court declined to grant conditional discharges, finding them contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the offences and lack of rehabilitation plans.

However, considering the significant delay of over five years and the offenders' circumstances, the court imposed 12-month conditional sentences to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation.

The defendants, who were patients and cleaners for a family physician, were charged with multiple offences including using forged prescriptions and possessing fentanyl and oxycodone.

The Crown alleged they used their after-hours access to the doctor's office to forge prescriptions and fax them to pharmacies.

The court found both defendants guilty of using forged documents and possessing fentanyl and property obtained by crime, relying on circumstantial evidence including fax transmission times, lack of office stamps, and evidence of cutting and pasting.

The defendants were acquitted of possessing proceeds of crime due to insufficient evidence.

The accused, Albert Tremblay and Amanda Ruddy, applied for directed verdicts of not guilty on multiple counts, arguing the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court granted directed verdicts for counts related to possession of stolen property (chainsaws) due to lack of recent possession evidence, and for fraud counts due to absence of economic deprivation to the pharmacies.

However, the court denied directed verdicts for a count of possession of property obtained by crime (cash), and for counts of illegal possession of narcotics (fentanyl and oxycodone), finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to proceed to a jury.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, for an order excluding evidence due to alleged Charter violations.

The application concerned two main issues: lost police photographs from a search and unlawfully obtained/undisclosed medical prescription records.

The court found that the loss of photographs did not constitute unacceptable negligence or prejudice the defence, thus denying their exclusion.

However, the court determined that two specific prescription documents (Exhibits #26 and #27) were unlawfully seized without a production order, infringing the accused's privacy rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, and were not disclosed in a timely fashion.

Applying the Grant factors, these two exhibits were deemed inadmissible.

A stay of proceedings was not warranted as the Charter-infringing conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The court ruled on the admissibility of two purported prescriptions during a criminal trial.

The documents, introduced by defence counsel during cross-examination of a doctor's secretary, were questioned for authenticity by co-accused's counsel.

The court found that the witness's testimony, which appeared to accept the documents' representation, coupled with the difficulty of assessing her evidence without the documents, warranted their admission as numbered exhibits for a limited purpose, rejecting defence arguments for non-admission or identification-only marking.

This is a voir dire ruling on the admissibility of pharmacy records as business records under section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The documents in question included fax copies of prescriptions and computer-generated "prescription hard copies," some with handwritten notes.

The court found that these documents met the five prerequisite conditions for admissibility as business records: they were original entries, made contemporaneously, in the course of normal business routine, by persons under a duty to record, and without a motive to misrepresent.

The court also addressed the notice requirement under subsection 30(7), finding that sufficient notice was given or, alternatively, dispensing with the formal notice requirement.

The records were admitted into evidence.