Venus Sayed

The accused was convicted of eight offences including possession of multiple controlled substances (fentanyl, cocaine, ketamine, methamphetamine, and GHB) for the purpose of trafficking, assault of a peace officer with intent to resist or prevent lawful arrest, attempt to take a weapon from a peace officer, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the accused's prior criminal record including two previous P4P convictions, his Indigenous background without connection to Indigenous culture (no Gladue report requested), his history of substance addiction, employment, and partial rehabilitation.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years, with four years for the P4P fentanyl index offence and one year consecutive for the assault of a peace officer, reduced by twelve months of combined Summers credit and Downes mitigation, resulting in four years remaining to serve.

Following a joint trial, both appellants challenged convictions for possession of cocaine for trafficking and related proceeds offences, largely on factual grounds.

The court found no basis to interfere with the trial findings.

Leave to appeal sentence for one appellant was granted but dismissed on the merits.

The court sentenced Evan Mitchell for multiple firearms and drug offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, the offender’s background, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles such as totality, parity, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 55 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh custodial conditions, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The court considered whether Hady Delgado was in constructive or joint possession of drugs and cash found in a bedroom he shared with his brother.

The evidence was circumstantial, and the court found that while there was a strong inference of knowledge, there was a reasonable alternative inference that the drugs belonged to Jersey Delgado and were in the room without Hady's knowledge.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Hady was in possession and acquitted him on all counts.

Ephraim Woldehawariat was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved he intended to exercise control over the substance, specifically addressing the 'hot potato' defence.

The court found that the accused had the fentanyl in his hand for at least 20 seconds before attempting to hide it from police, leading to the reasonable inference that he formed the intention to control it.

The court rejected the 'hot potato' defence and found the accused guilty.

The accused, Di’on Jahil Wong, brought an application alleging breaches of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that police delayed facilitating access to counsel without justification and conducted an unreasonable strip search without sufficient grounds, relying solely on the nature of the drug trafficking charge.

The court dismissed the s. 10(a) breach claim and found the pat-down search reasonable.

As a remedy for the s. 8 and s. 10(b) breaches, the court ordered a stay of all charges against the accused, emphasizing the need to denounce police misconduct and preserve the integrity of the justice system, particularly given the invasive and humiliating nature of the unjustified strip search.

The appellant pleaded guilty to four offences arising from a large-scale marijuana grow operation: production of marijuana, theft of electricity, theft of water, and injury to property.

The operation consisted of 864 plants with an estimated value between $324,000 and $518,000.

The sentencing judge imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of three years for production, with concurrent 12-month sentences for the remaining counts.

The appellant challenged the constitutional validity of the mandatory minimum sentence.

On appeal, the court found the mandatory minimum unconstitutional and determined a fit sentence of 14 months imprisonment for the production offence, with concurrent sentences for the property offences remaining undisturbed.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown proceeded largely through filed 540(7) materials.

The court applied the test for committal, which requires determining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonably instructed jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case involved circumstantial evidence and required careful analysis of inferences that could be properly drawn from the evidence presented.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal for the offence of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge excluded evidence of a roadside field sobriety test on the basis that the police officer had not been qualified as an expert witness.

The appeal court held that this was an error of law because the Criminal Code regulatory scheme does not require officers administering field sobriety tests to be qualified as experts under the Mohan framework.

The court emphasized that such tests are investigative tools used to establish reasonable grounds for a breath demand and are not admissible to prove guilt.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

Following a police investigation into a single-vehicle car accident where two firearms were discovered, three accused were charged with multiple firearms-related offences and breaches of court orders.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown presented evidence of a dark gray Mazda 3 that crashed while traveling at excessive speed.

Three males exited the vehicle and fled the scene.

Two of the males were apprehended shortly thereafter near a ravine.

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial on the basis of identity and possession of the firearms.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit Williamson and Malcolm-Evans to trial on multiple counts, but discharged Lyttle due to insufficient evidence of his presence in the vehicle.

The accused was charged with robbery, threatening damage to property, threatening death, and breaching probation and recognizance.

The Crown's case rested primarily on eyewitness identification by the robbery victim.

The defence challenged the reliability of the identification evidence, citing discrepancies in the victim's descriptions and procedural flaws in the photo lineup.

The court found the victim's identification credible and reliable, supported by circumstantial evidence including the accused's residence near the robbery scene and his arrest with the co-accused.

The court rejected the co-accused's testimony that a third party was the actual accomplice, finding it self-serving and unworthy of credit.

The accused was convicted on all counts.