R. v. Ngo

R. v. Ngo Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2025-10-02 Neutral citation 2025 ONCA 685 Docket numbers COA-23-CR-0344 Judges Copeland, Jill M.; Monahan, Patrick J.; Madsen, Lene Subject Criminal Decision Content

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. Ngo, 2025 ONCA 685 DATE: 20251002 DOCKET: COA-23-CR-0344 Copeland, Monahan and Madsen JJ.A.

BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and Luan Ngo Appellant Jessica Zita, for the appellant David Quayat and Robert Tremblay, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: September 29, 2025 On appeal from the convictions entered by Justice Gillian E. Roberts of the Superior Court of Justice, on September 22, 2022, and from the sentence imposed on February 2, 2023.

REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant appeals his convictions[1] for production of methamphetamine, possession for the purpose of trafficking of methamphetamine, and possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000. He argues that the pre-trial application judge erred in finding that the Crown had justified the no-knock entry to his home during the execution of a search warrant, and as a result, erred in finding that there was no s. 8 Charter violation. The appellant further argues that, if this court agrees that his s. 8 rights were infringed, the evidence seized from his home should have been excluded, pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter. [2] We are not persuaded that the application judge erred in her s. 8 Charter analysis. [3] She correctly summarized the law regarding the Crown’s onus to justify a no-knock entry during the execution of a search warrant, as set out in R. v. Cornell, 2010 SCC 31, [2010] 2 S.C.R. 142. [4] The evidence on the Charter application included an affidavit from an experienced officer involved in the management of this investigation explaining the reasons the police believed the no-knock entry was necessary. Based on this evidence, the application judge concluded that the no-knock entry was justified. She found that concerns for safety of police, the community, and the occupants of the house relied on by the police to justify the no-knock entry were

“reasonable and genuinely held.” In particular, she found that the no-knock entry was justified by reasonable police concerns for safety posed by: potential delay, if announcement of entry was required, due to the execution of 14 search warrants simultaneously at different locations; the potential presence of weapons associated with drug trafficking; the volatile nature of a methamphetamine laboratory and ingredients used in its production; as well as concerns about preservation of evidence. [5] The application judge’s assessment of the evidence and findings of fact in relation to the justification for the no-knock entry are entitled to substantial deference on appeal: Cornell, at para.

25. Her findings are supported by the record and contain no palpable and overriding error. [6] As there was no error in the application judge’s conclusion that the appellant’s s. 8 Charter rights were not infringed, it is unnecessary to consider the appellant’s s. 24(2) argument. [7] The conviction appeal is dismissed. The sentence appeal is dismissed as abandoned. “J. Copeland J.A.” “P.J. Monahan J.A.” “L. Madsen J.A.” [1] The appellant’s notice of appeal also sought leave to appeal sentence. The appellant did not pursue the sentence appeal in either his written or oral submissions. In the circumstances, we dismiss the sentence appeal as abandoned.