Volodymyr Fedorchuk

The accused was sentenced after admitting guilt to possessing protonitazene, cocaine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking, possessing proceeds of crime, possessing a semi-automatic handgun with accessible ammunition, and breaching two weapons prohibition orders.

The court treated protonitazene trafficking as falling at the highest end of gravity because of the drug’s extreme potency, unpredictability, and presentation as counterfeit oxycodone, and found the trafficking to be an upper-level commercial operation supported by large quantities of drugs and cash.

Despite remorse, family support, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and some limited mitigation for a Charter breach and an improper strip search, the court held that denunciation and deterrence had to predominate given the accused’s related prior record and escalation in offending.

Applying totality, the court imposed a 15-year global sentence, then credited pre-sentence custody and the strip-search deduction, leaving 11 years, 7 months, and 2 days to serve.

The accused, Luke Adam Martin, was convicted of two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking involving large quantities of fentanyl and methamphetamine, alongside guilty pleas to theft, possession of break-in instruments, and breach of probation.

The court considered the serious nature of the offences, the large quantities of drugs involved, the presence of firearms, and the accused’s prior criminal record and probation status.

The accused’s submissions to treat the drug possession as a fleeting courier incident and to exclude firearms as an aggravating factor were rejected.

The court imposed a sentence of 13 years for fentanyl trafficking and 6 years concurrent for methamphetamine trafficking, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Luke Adam Martin guilty of two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking methamphetamine and fentanyl found in a 2012 Ford Escape.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on evidence that Martin had control and knowledge of the drugs and firearms found in the vehicle.

The defence conceded possession and trafficking elements but argued Martin lacked knowledge of the drugs, attributing possession to a co-accused, Brandon Pfeiffer.

The court rejected this defence, finding Pfeiffer's testimony implausible and Martin's denials not credible, especially given the quantity and value of the drugs, Martin's control of the vehicle, and his wearing of latex gloves at arrest.

The court concluded Martin's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The defendant, Nockeem Peck, was charged with possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application to exclude the heroin as evidence, arguing it was obtained through an arbitrary detention in violation of his s. 9 Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding that no detention occurred prior to a lawful arrest, as police merely approached the vehicle and observed a crime in progress before any interaction.

The court distinguished the facts from cases where police conduct constituted detention (e.g., physical obstruction or authoritative demands).

Alternatively, the court found the evidence would have been admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the minimal intrusion and good faith of the police.

Peck was subsequently convicted of possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking.

This document serves as a formal header for an appeal decision, primarily noting the imposition and continuation of a publication ban under section 539 of the Criminal Code.

It explicitly states that the full judgment is subject to a statutory non-publication order, pending the outcome of the underlying trial, and is therefore not publicly accessible.

The document outlines the specific provisions of section 539 regarding the restriction of evidence publication from preliminary inquiries.

The accused was arrested for robbery and break and enter, and a search of her satchel revealed fentanyl and cocaine.

She brought a Charter motion seeking a stay of proceedings under section 7 due to the police's failure to preserve video footage from her apartment building, and exclusion of the drugs under section 8 due to the seizure of her underwire bra during a strip search.

The court found no section 7 breach, as the failure to preserve the video did not amount to unacceptable negligence.

The court found a section 8 breach regarding the seizure of the bra, noting the police policy of removing underwire bras without providing a replacement was unreasonable and discriminatory.

However, applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court declined to exclude the narcotics, emphasizing the seriousness of the drug trafficking charges and society's interest in an adjudication on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered 55.69 grams of cocaine in an apartment where the offender arrived with a key.

The offender had no prior criminal record, was employed in his father's business, and was the primary caregiver for his father who suffered from Parkinson's disease, dementia, and colon cancer.

The Crown sought five months incarceration; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation or, alternatively, a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence with the first five months under house arrest and the final three months with a curfew, followed by one year of probation with 100 hours of community service.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant was charged with eight Criminal Code offences and four Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences arising from the execution of two search warrants at different apartments on June 15-16, 2016.

The defendant conceded committal on two counts but resisted committal on charges related to possession of heroin and a firearm found at a second apartment.

The Crown sought to establish constructive and joint possession based on the defendant's possession of keys and a fob to the apartment, his association with a co-defendant, and a fingerprint found on ammunition.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit the defendant to trial on all remaining counts, including the additional count of possession of a firearm with readily accessible ammunition.

The accused was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police surveillance and a search warrant led to the discovery of 216 grams of cocaine in the accused's basement, where he was living with his spouse and children.

The Crown sought four years' imprisonment while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of three and one-half years' imprisonment with a six-month credit for strict bail conditions, resulting in three years' actual imprisonment.

The court rejected the conditional sentence argument, emphasizing the large quantity of cocaine, the prior trafficking conviction while on conditional sentence, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The defendant was charged with two counts of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and contained misleading statements.

The trial judge conducted a Garofoli application to assess whether the warrant should have been issued.

After excising a reference to an unsubstantiated admission by an occupant of a vehicle stopped near the defendant's home, the court found that sufficient grounds remained to justify the warrant's issuance.

The court rejected the defendant's Charter section 8 challenge and found the defendant guilty of both counts.