-
The prosecution often gets a police “expert” to testify about whether seized drugs were “for the purpose of trafficking” in Ontario drug trials. These experts look at the quantity of the drugs and other indicators of drug trafficking, like the presence of cash or debt lists. Defence counsel must eliminate, or strictly limit, the use […]
-
In September 2014, I commented on the harsh sentences Ontario Courts have been handing out for trafficking in synthetic opiates. (See: What are the sentences for Possession and Trafficking of Fentanyl in Ottawa & Ontario.) The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed the harsh sentencing range in November 2014. In R. v. Barham, [2014] O.J. No. 5404, the […]
-
In a recent Vancouver case, the police used the surveillance cameras at a Casino to zoom-in on someone’s Blackberry, to read his texts. The police were trying to gather intelligence on this person. At trial, the judge ruled that the accused’s Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure were breached. The texts were excluded as […]
-
The “Carter defence” allowed an accused person to rebut the readings an Intoxilyzer by testifying about how many drinks they consumed. This was also known as the “two beer” defence. The 2009 changes to the Criminal Code effectively banned an accused’s self-reported drinking history from challenging the breath readings. The Ontario Superior Court recently confirmed […]
-
What are the sentences for Possession and Trafficking of Fentanyl in Ottawa & Ontario? Given that Fentanyl is a relatively new street drug, the applicable sentencing ranges have yet to be clearly established by the courts in Canada. The few sentencing cases to date suggest that Fentanyl offences will be treated much like heroin offences. […]
-
02 Mar '14
Elements of an “alibi” defence recapped by Ontario Court of Appeal.
-
R. v. Valentine, involved a traffic stop on Highway 401, where drugs were later found. The police searched a car based on the smell of marijuana. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the legality of a search, despite several problematic issues.
-
28 Feb '14
In R. v. T.A.P., 2014 ONCA 141, the Ontario Court of Appeal imposed what essentially amounts to a two-year house arrest sentence for possession of a loaded handgun with a defaced serial number. The case has illustrates the sentencing range for “non-true crime” handgun offences.
-
The legality of this mandatory minimum sentence was the issue under consideration in R. v. Lloyd. The Court found that the one-year minimum violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as in many situations it “is a sentence which Canadians would find abhorrent or intolerable.”
-
Justice Paciocco, author of The Law on Evidence, recently rejected the testimony of an accused person about how much he had to drink in an Ottawa criminal trial. Justice Paciocco rejected the accused’s testimony largely based on the testimony of the Crown’s toxicology expert on the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 8000C.
Caselaw
Brett McGarry
- 116 Lisgar Street, Suite 300, K2P 0C2 Ottawa, Ontario Canada
- brett@mcgarrylaw.ca
- 613-884-8576
- 613-691-1373