Timothy S. McCann

The offender was sentenced to a two-year-less-one-day conditional sentence with house arrest and electronic monitoring for possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine.

He breached the conditional sentence by removing his GPS monitor and traveling over 360 kilometers from Scarborough to Pembroke, where he was found during a police search warrant execution.

The court found the breach to be a total repudiation of the conditional sentence order and collapsed the entire remaining sentence, requiring the offender to serve 420 days in custody before resuming his three-year probation order.

Jevoi Sangster pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine.

The offences occurred when he was 18 years old.

The Crown sought 2-3 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the lethality of fentanyl and Sangster's continued offending while on bail.

The defence sought a conditional sentence, highlighting Sangster's youth, lack of prior record at the time of the offence, family support, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on his life choices.

The court considered aggravating factors (gravity of fentanyl trafficking, planned profit-driven activity, re-offending on bail) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, youth, good rehabilitation prospects, family support).

Applying principles of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and restraint, and considering social context evidence regarding anti-Black racism, the court imposed a two-year less a day conditional sentence followed by three years of probation, with strict conditions including house arrest and a GPS monitor.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year weapon prohibition, DNA sample, and drug forfeiture.

The accused, Deandre Davis, was charged with multiple counts of possessing controlled substances (cocaine, heroin, fentanyl, benzodiazepine) for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing property obtained by crime.

A co-accused, Hannah Jardine, had charges stayed.

Davis brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 24(2) alleging unreasonable search and seizure of the vehicle he was operating.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the warrantless search of the vehicle, including its trunk, justified under the Liquor Licence and Control Act and the Cannabis Control Act due to the discovery of an open beer can and cannabis roach.

The Crown's case relied on overwhelming circumstantial evidence, including the large quantities of drugs, their packaging, the presence of cutting agents, a significant amount of cash found on Davis and in the vehicle, multiple cell phones, and text messages indicating drug trafficking activities.

The defence argued that another individual, Dale Morris, had exclusive possession of the vehicle prior to the arrest and could have been responsible for the drugs.

The court rejected the defence's explanation, finding Ms. Morris's testimony lacked credibility regarding her efforts to inform police about her uncle.

Applying principles of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt, the court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and concluded that Davis possessed and controlled the drugs and cash for the purpose of trafficking.

Davis was found guilty on all counts.

The accused, Michele Arnold and Jean Lafontaine, brought a Charter application alleging violations of their section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 9 (arbitrary detention) rights.

They sought to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at their residence.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) supporting the warrant, applying the Debot test for compelling, credible, and corroborated information from confidential informants and anonymous sources, and the Garofoli standard for reviewing search warrants.

The court found that the ITO provided reasonable grounds for the search, concluding there was no Charter violation.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Clayton Forrest, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and fentanyl.

The fentanyl charge was amended to simple possession.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on items found in a backpack linked to Forrest.

The court found the chain of continuity for the seized drugs was proven.

However, while the court found Forrest owned and controlled the backpack and its contents, including the methamphetamine, it had a reasonable doubt that the methamphetamine was possessed for the purpose of trafficking, given the quantity and other circumstances.

The court also found a reasonable doubt regarding Forrest's possession of fentanyl due to conflicting evidence on its location.

Forrest was found guilty of simple possession of methamphetamine and not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and simple possession of fentanyl.

The accused, Tyler Moore and Rhonda Moore, brought a Charter application alleging violations of their section 7 and 11(d) rights due to the unacceptable loss of crucial pole camera surveillance footage.

This footage was used by the police to obtain search warrants for their residence in a drug trafficking investigation.

The court found that while police were not required to obtain a general warrant for the pole camera (as it captured publicly viewable areas), the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) were unacceptably negligent in failing to preserve the raw video data.

The officers' notes were deemed an inadequate substitute for the original footage.

As a remedy, the court denied the request for a stay of proceedings, finding it was not one of the "clearest of cases" where a fair trial was impossible.

Instead, the court ordered the excision of all paragraphs referring to the covert surveillance video from the Informations to Obtain (ITOs) sworn to obtain the search warrants.

The accused, J.A., brought an application under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking disclosure of source documents relied upon by an affiant for an Information to Obtain (ITO) a Feeney warrant for the arrest of a third party, R.S. The Crown opposed, arguing the materials were not "fruits of the investigation" related to J.A. and that J.A. lacked standing to challenge the warrant for R.S. The court denied the application, finding the investigative file unrelated to the case against J.A. and that J.A. had not established standing to challenge the third-party warrant.

Clayton Forrest brought an application for standing under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to challenge the validity of a search warrant executed by the Ontario Provincial Police at a dwelling house.

Forrest was found in the basement of the searched unit, where controlled substances and personal items were seized.

He argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement as a guest.

The court applied the "totality of circumstances" test, considering factors such as presence, control, ownership, and historical use.

Despite Forrest's subjective expectation and presence, the court found that he did not objectively establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement area, which appeared to be a storage/drug use area rather than his living quarters, and his stated residences elsewhere contradicted his claim.

The search warrant for the unit was deemed to extend to the basement.

The application for standing was dismissed.

The case concerns the sentencing of Tyson Kennedy for multiple offences, including fraud over $5000, possession of fentanyl for trafficking, impaired driving, and breach of release orders.

The primary issue was the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit, specifically the application of "Duncan credit" for harsh conditions due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

The court reviewed the joint submission for a 42-month sentence, finding it lenient but acceptable, and then determined the appropriate credit, granting 0.5 days Duncan credit for each of the 73 lockdown days, in addition to the standard 1.5:1 Summers credit.

Hayden Bieber pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a conveyance, possession of property obtained by crime, possession of a weapon dangerous to public peace (all Criminal Code offences), and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (Controlled Drugs and Substances Act).

The offences occurred following a traffic stop where police found drugs, cash, and brass knuckles.

Bieber, 25, had no prior criminal record and had made significant efforts towards rehabilitation, including abstaining from drugs for a year and attending Narcotics Anonymous.

The Crown sought a 4-year incarceration, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day, or a sentence in the upper reformatory/lower penitentiary range if incarceration was necessary.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for fentanyl trafficking, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate despite Bieber's rehabilitative efforts and lack of criminal record.

The judge imposed a global sentence of 36 months (3 years) of imprisonment, after applying credit for pre-sentence release conditions and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture/destruction of seized substances.

The applicant sought severance of his charges for possession of a controlled substance and trafficking in a controlled substance from those of his co-accused under s. 591(3) of the Criminal Code.

Both were charged following a vehicle stop at a R.I.D.E. program where drugs were found on the applicant's person and additional drugs were found under the passenger seat where the co-accused was sitting.

The applicant argued that severance was necessary to preserve his right to make full answer and defence, as he could not compel his co-accused to testify in a joint trial.

The court granted the severance application, finding that the applicant's interest in presenting potentially exculpatory evidence outweighed the Crown's preference for a joint trial.

The accused brought a Dawson application seeking leave to cross-examine Detective Constable St. Cyr on his Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant of the accused's residence.

The court considered whether proposed cross-examination would assist in determining material issues, particularly the sufficiency of grounds for the warrant and the credibility and reliability of the confidential informants upon which the affiant relied.

The court granted partial leave to cross-examine on specific areas including clarification of terminology, the relevance of prior police occurrences, the length of time confidential informants were assigned numbers, and the basis for the affiant's assertions regarding informant credibility.

The accused were arrested based on a confidential informant tip indicating they possessed cocaine and oxycodone.

The Crown charged Adams with possession of oxycodone contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Harkness with possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in oxycodone.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and subsequent searches on Charter grounds.

The court found that the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, being based on a tip that spoke only of "possibilities" rather than credibly based probability.

The court also found violations of the right to counsel and unreasonable searches of the accused's person and cell phone.

All evidence obtained as a result of these violations was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused pleaded guilty to production of marijuana contrary to section 7 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A sentencing hearing was held to determine the number of plants produced, as this affects the applicable minimum sentence.

The Crown sought a one-year minimum sentence based on production of more than 200 plants.

The central issue was whether cannabis clones (cuttings) without visible root systems constitute "plants" under the legislation.

The court adopted a definition based on cultivation or propagation activity rather than the presence of roots, finding that over 450 plants were being grown and imposing the mandatory minimum sentence.

The accused was charged with possession of Oxycodone following a vehicle stop.

The sole issue was whether the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated and whether evidence should be excluded.

A detective stopped the vehicle based on surveillance of a suspected drug house.

The court found the detention was arbitrary and unlawful, lacking both statutory and common law authority.

The officer had no articulable cause to detain the accused.

The demand for identification constituted an unreasonable search.

The court excluded all evidence and acquitted the accused.