Tim Radcliffe

The accused was charged with multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance of two residences and the subsequent seizure of large quantities of drugs and cash.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the prohibited substances and property, as other individuals had access to the residences and the items were not in plain view.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused, charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences, underwent a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a release plan involving a surety and GPS monitoring.

The court found the release plan inadequate and ordered the accused's continued detention, concluding it was justified under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, despite the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in correctional institutions.

The accused was found guilty of multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences after police located a sawed-off shotgun, ammunition, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana in his vehicle.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought one year.

The court considered the accused's youthful age, limited unrelated record, and strict bail conditions as mitigating factors, balanced against the aggravating factors of commercial drug trafficking and firearms possession.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment, minus credits for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years of probation.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice that declared the mandatory victim surcharge under s. 737(1) of the Criminal Code unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The accused, who pleaded guilty to multiple offences and was indigent with mental health and addiction issues, argued that the mandatory surcharge imposed a crushing financial burden.

The Superior Court agreed that the surcharge constitutes punishment for Charter purposes but held that the evidentiary record was insufficient to establish that the surcharge was grossly disproportionate.

The court emphasized the high threshold for s. 12 violations and the availability of statutory mechanisms such as extensions of time to pay.

The appeal was allowed and the surcharge was ordered imposed.