Yoni S. Rahamin

The defendants, Tanisha Evans and Chantelle Rochester, were found guilty by a jury of importing cocaine, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

They were arrested at Pearson International Airport with approximately 2.4 kg of cocaine each, concealed in their luggage.

Both claimed they believed they were importing money, but the jury rejected their defence.

The court considered mitigating factors such as their lack of criminal records, consistent employment, and strong support systems, as well as the aggravating factor of importing a significant quantity of cocaine.

Applying the sentencing guidelines from R. v. Cunningham, the court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for each defendant, along with ancillary orders for DNA samples, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the cocaine.

The appellant, a taxi driver, appealed her conviction and one-month sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The trial judge found that the appellant drove away while the rear door was open and an intoxicated passenger was trying to exit, causing the passenger to fall and sustain injuries.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error or misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge and held that the sentence was fit.

The appeal from conviction and sentence was dismissed.

In an extradition proceeding, the person sought applied for disclosure of communications between Canadian and United States authorities relating to his return to the United States.

The applicant alleged that earlier deportation proceedings in Canada were in fact a disguised extradition process amounting to an abuse of process under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Applying the test from R. v. Larosa, the court considered whether the allegation had an air of reality and whether the requested materials were likely relevant.

The close timing between the issuance of a U.S. criminal complaint and a Canadian immigration arrest warrant raised a realistic possibility of cross-border communications.

The court held that the allegation was not a fishing expedition and ordered disclosure.

The appellant, a nurse/receptionist, forged oxycodone prescriptions and faxed them to pharmacies, where accomplices picked up the pills.

She was convicted of uttering forged documents and trafficking, and sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge failed to give a W.(D.) instruction, the trafficking verdict was unreasonable because innocent pharmacists dispensed the drugs, and the sentence was unfit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the jury was properly instructed and the innocent agency doctrine applied.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 42-month sentence was fit given the serious breach of trust and did not violate the parity principle.