Canada Case Law

R. v. Singh

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The sentencing judge properly considered and balanced the appellant's family and child‑care collateral consequences, motive and guilty pleas against the significant gravity and moral blameworthiness of kilogram‑level cocaine trafficking; no error in principle was shown that affected the sentence, the fresh evidence failed the Palmer criteria, and therefore the three and one‑half year custodial sentence is maintained.

Source excerpt

• Trafficking in cocaine
• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Conditional sentence
• Collateral consequences (family/child impact)
• Fresh evidence (palmer test)
• Range of sentence

Read case analysis

R. v. Edwards

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from drug-trafficking convictions, holding the search warrant was properly issued on corroborated confidential-informant evidence.

• Search warrant
• Reasonable and probable grounds
• Confidential informants
• Section 24(2) charter exclusions
• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Search-warrant

Read case analysis

R. v. Cairns-Cushman

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Justine Cairns-Cushman’s conviction for drug trafficking and refused to reduce her sentence based on post-sentence rehabilitation.

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Circumstantial evidence
• Fresh evidence on sentence
• Post-sentence rehabilitation
• Narcotics (carfentanil, fentanyl)
• Circumstantial-evidence

Read case analysis

R. v. Oldham

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

Applying the law on circumstantial evidence and constructive possession, the Crown failed to exclude reasonable alternative inferences because the accused was a sporadic occupant of a multi‑person residence, multiple others had access to the locations where drugs and paraphernalia were found, and there was insufficient evidence of the requisite knowledge and control to prove constructive possession and intent to traffic beyond a reasonable doubt; therefore acquittal was required.

Source excerpt

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Constructive possession
• Circumstantial evidence
• Burden and standard of proof
• Controlled drugs and substances act interpretation

Read case analysis

R. v. Hamilton

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Vivian Hamilton’s conviction appeal, rejected Charter and verdict challenges, and dismissed the sentence appeal after granting leave.

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Directed verdict
• Appellate review and standard of review
• Drug-trafficking

Read case analysis

R. v. Oryia

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Sentence appeal partly allowed after fresh evidence of harsh custodial conditions. The Court held the original two-year penitentiary term was fit when imposed, but varied its service to a conditional sentence.

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Possession of proceeds of crime
• Conditional sentence
• Fresh evidence re custodial conditions
• Fitness of sentence
• Sentencing-appeals

Read case analysis

R. v. Holland

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

Viewing the circumstantial evidence as a whole, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of and some measure of control over the drugs and firearm because alternative reasonable inferences existed (including that they had just arrived or that another occupant had control), items were not clearly in plain view or linked to the accused, and forensic or contextual evidence (tenancy, surveillance, keys, fingerprints, personal effects) was absent; therefore guilt was not the only reasonable inference and the accused must be acquitted.

Source excerpt

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Constructive and joint possession
• Wilful blindness
• Circumstantial evidence
• Reasonable doubt

Read case analysis

R. v. Geizer

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The court accepted the true negotiated joint recommendation because the proposed sentence (two years less a day served in the community with one year probation) lies within the range for similar offenders, satisfies the Anthony-Cook public interest threshold, and meets the statutory requirements for a conditional sentence under s.742.1 (it would not endanger community safety and is consistent with ss.718-718.2 and s.10 CDSA given the offender's health, age, addiction, remorse, early plea and PSR). Accordingly the conditional sentence and ancillary orders were imposed.

Source excerpt

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Conditional sentence order
• Joint plea recommendation
• Mitigation and remorse
• Ancillary orders

Read case analysis

R. v. Griggs

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Ontario Court of Appeal set aside drug-trafficking convictions and ordered new trials after finding the trial judge erred on s. 8 standing, while upholding the verdict analysis.

• S.8 standing
• Reasonable expectation of privacy
• Search warrants
• Controlled drugs and substances act
• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Possession of proceeds of crime

Read case analysis

R. v. Celenk

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court of Appeal upheld convictions for fentanyl trafficking and firearm possession, but reduced the trafficking sentence from 13 years to 10 years for a youthful first offender.

• Possession for the purpose of trafficking
• Possession of firearm
• Constructive possession
• Inconsistent verdicts
• Occupying a vehicle
• Youthful offender sentencing

Read case analysis