R v Fares, 2016 ABQB 199

Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: R v Fares, 2016 ABQB 199 Date: 20160413 Docket: 120504147Q1 Registry: Calgary Between: Her Majesty the Queen Crown - and - Khalil Oday Fares Accused _______________________________________________________ Memorandum of Decision of the Honourable Mr. Justice W.A. Tilleman _______________________________________________________ Introduction [ 1 ] Mr. Fares was charged with a number of firearms and drug offences arising out of an incident in Calgary on May 1 st , 2012. The indictment reads: 1. That he, on or about the 1 st day of May, 2012, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit:

cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 2. That he, on or about the 1st day of May, 2012, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully possess a controlled substance, to wit:cannabis marihuana in an amount not greater than thirty grams, contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 3. That he, on or about the 1st day of May, 2012, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully produce a controlled substance, to wit:cocaine, contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. 4.

On or about the 1st day of May, 2012, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did store, display, handle or transport any firearm to wit: Firestarhandgun in a manner contrary to a regulation made under paragraph 117(

h) of the Firearms Act, contrary to section 86(2) of the CriminalCode of Canada. 5. On or about the 1st day of May, 2012, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did have in his possession a prohibited weapon (or restrictedweapon or a prohibited device or prohibited ammunition), to wit: Firestar handgun, without being the holder of a license under which hemay possess it, contrary to section 91(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. 6. On or about the 1st day of May, 2012, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully possess a loaded prohibited firearm to wit:Firestar handgun at ...

Calgary, Alberta not being the holder of an authorization or license under which he may possess the firearm in thatplace, contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. 7. That he, on or about the 1st day of May, 2012, at or near Calgary, Alberta, did unlawfully have in his possession proceeds ofproperty to wit: Canadian currency of a value not exceeding $5,000.00 knowing that all of the property was obtained (or derived directlyor indirectly) as a result of the commission in Canada of an offence under section 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act,contrary to

section 354 of the Criminal Code of Canada. [2] The facts of this case are elaborated in related voir dire decisions. See: R v Fares, 2015 ABQB 147 (voluntariness); R vFares, 2014 ABQB 116 (search and seizure issues). Procedural History [3] Following the Charter decisions to allow the statements and the evidence in, the Crown closed its case and, with the consentof the defence, the voir dire evidence carried into trial. [4] Additionally, the defence elected to call no evidence. Thus, the trial proceeded on the basis of the voir dire evidence.

Thevoir dire exhibits were marked as exhibits in the trial. (The list of exhibits is found as Appendix A to this decision). Evidence [5] The charges arose from the execution of a search warrant on 50th St. Northeast, Calgary, that being the residential address ofMr. Fares. Previous surveillance and subsequent search of his residence revealed 8 grams of cocaine in a box, a loaded handgun on thecouch, a large amount of cash in his pants, and the discovery of other items such as baggies and a scale. There was also a pot found in adrawer next to the stove with cocaine residue in it, glassware and utensils.

Arguments Crown [6] Referring to the law, the Crown quoted section 4(3) of the Criminal Code which defines possession as follows: 4(3) For the purposes of this Act, (

a) a person has anything in possession when he has it in his personal possession or knowingly (

i) has it in the actual possession or custody of another person, or (ii) has it in any place, whether or not that place belongs to or is occupied by him, for the use or benefit of himself or of another person;[...] [7] The Crown argues Mr. Fares personally or constructively possessed drugs and the firearm. For authority, the Crown relieson R v Dipnarine, 2014 ABCA 328, where the Alberta Court of Appeal stated this: 18 As for control, the actus reus of possession can be shared by more than one person or delegated by one person to another.

For thepurposes of “control”, the accused must be proven to be in a position to “exercise a directing or restraining power” over the cocaine: seeR v Savory, (1996) (ON CA), 94 OAC 318 where the Court of Appeal approved a jury direction that “control meansthat a person could exercise a directing or restraining power over the article, over the cocaine”. Strictly speaking, s 4(3) of the Coderefers to “knowledge and consent” but as pointed out in R v Terence, (SCC), [1983] 1 SCR 357 that means a “measureof control” not exclusive control nor pre-dominant control.

[...] 20 See also Pham at para. 16 to 18 which re-affirms Chambers. More recently, in R v Wu, 2010 BCCA 589 at para 20, 298 B.C.A.C.84 we find this: 20 The law with respect to control in the context of constructive possession is well known. What the Crown must prove is that anaccused had the ability to exercise some power (i.e., some measure of control) over the item in issue. It is not necessary for the Crown toprove that such power was in fact exercised: R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253 (S.C.C.), at 15 -17, 137, 138; R. v.

Webster,2008 BCCA 458, 238 C.C.C. (3d) 270 (B.C.C.A.) at paras. 42-44. [8] From all of this, and other evidence, the Crown suggests Mr. Fares was in possession or at least had constructive possessionof the drugs, weapon and contraband. He knew what was inside. He had knowledge of the cocaine, both crack and powder, found in thedrawer and cocaine in the pot. He had the ability to exercise control over it. Same with the firearm. Same with the cash. Cocaine [9] For Count 3 of the indictment, that Mr.

Fares unlawfully produced cocaine, the Crown’s position is that the container, spoonand fork, were all consistent with cooking crack cocaine. The scraping on the pot itself was analyzed as cocaine and with the pot andsmaller glass container nearby the stove, along with the spoon with residue and fork suggest, that Mr. Fares was also producing cocainecontrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (“CDSA”). [10] The Crown’s case, including with respect to trafficking turns significantly on the issue of the totality of the evidence.

TheCrown admits this is a circumstantial case but taken together, the evidence as a whole includes: • 8 grams (total) including both crack and powder cocaine in a mini chest; • a number of sandwich baggies in the fridge and elsewhere; • baggies with the corner ripped off with some light residue on the corner; • the prescription bottle with a ripped baggie near it; • digital scale with some powder on it; • 5 cell phones; • easy access to a loaded handgun, with ammo; and • $1,400 in cash, mostly smaller bills. [11] On top of all of these items, the police surveillance indicates that on one evening (April 27, 2012) the accused had severalquick meetings with five unknown individuals within the space of 3 hours, all with apparent hand to hand interchanges suggesting thepeople being potential drug users.

The following items were also found in Mr. Fares’ house: • metal cooking pot with cocaine on the bottom and sides and a glass container in it; • spoon; and • fork. [12] While any of these kitchen utensils or the baggies individually mean nothing, the Crown points out the cooking pan hadresidue in it which was analyzed as and certified as cocaine. Finally, there was some burn residue on the spoon and while it was notanalyzed, it appeared consistent with crack. And it was inside the residue cooked pan. Marijuana and weapons charges [13] The other drug inside Mr.

Fares’ house was analyzed as cannabis and within the possession or constructive possession of Mr.Fares. [14] As for the weapons related offences, the Crown argued and the defence did not take much issue with certain counts beingCount 2 of the marijuana, nor Counts 4 thru 6 related to the firearms. These latter charges involve possession of a loaded prohibitedweapon and improper storage of same. Currency [15] Again on the totality of the evidence, the Crown argues the $1,400 cash is proceeds of crime.

Defence [16] In response to the Crown’s reliance on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Dipnarine, the defence pointed to the Supreme Courtof Canada’s case in R v Cooper, (SCC), [1978] 1 SCR 860, a case turning on inferences to be drawn from undisputedfacts. Defence argues the Court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilt of the accused is the only reasonable inferenceto be drawn from the proven facts.

[ 17 ] The defence does not dispute that Mr. Fares had a nexus with the home and was sufficiently associated with it including a tenancy agreement, that it should be deemed his residence. He has strong ties to the address. For example, the surveillance showed Mr. Fares arrived by car at the residence and used a key to enter it. Additionally, immigration documents show his most recent address as the one relevant to these charges. Defence agrees. It was his. [ 18 ] The defence mostly challenged the evidence underlying the cocaine and proceeds of crime allegations as per Counts 1, 3 and 7 of the indictment.

To repeat, Count 1 deals with possession for the purpose of trafficking ; Count 3 deals with producing cocaine; and Count 7 deals with proceeds of crime contrary to

section 354 of the Criminal Code . Cocaine [ 19 ] Regarding Count 1, the defence argued, inter alia that the defence expert Harris had changed versions of what factors he used in his belief of the totality of circumstances.

The expert’s first version included: • crack and powder cocaine; • bagging materials • scale; and • cooking utensils [ 20 ] He based a changed version additionally on: • Plastic bags with corners ripped off; • No consumption paraphernalia; • Cards used to cut up for sale; • 5 cell phones; • Gun; and • $1,400 cash. [ 21 ] The expert’s last version (obtained through cross-examination) focused on the cell phones and lack of proof they were working, including texting. [ 22 ] Conversely, there was evidence of personal consumption, such as a “straw”, coke cans, cards and so on.

Further, the presence of baggies, in the expert’s opinion, meant “absolutely nothing” and neither did the short “meets” in the absence of better information about the possible “buyers”. The defence argues that the Crown did not establish any drug sales. [ 23 ] At the end of the day, relying on Cooper , the defence submits that there was an “[equal as probable inference from the evidence relied upon by the expert] that drugs were for personal consumption”.

In the expert’s words at 309: “If we were to whittle away certain things and there’d be just the presence of crack cocaine and powder cocaine, it’s quite possible that both were there for simple possession. But when I take a look at the totality, the observations of the surveillance team, the baggies, the scale, the residue, the lack of paraphernalia, that’s what makes me draw my opinion for this file.” [ 24 ] To conclude on the point of inferences, given the totality of the evidence, could it be said trafficking was the only rational inference?

The defence argues “no”, that the cocaine was for personal consumption, additionally because of the: • Lack of score sheets; • Very small quantity of drugs; • No drugs wrapped for individual sale; and • Lack of use of cell phones. Production [ 25 ] On Count 3, production, the defence argues the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no cutting agent (baking soda), the pot was in the drawer and not on the stove, and the Crown did not have drug testing done on the cooking “utensils”.

Proceeds of Crime [ 26 ] Similarly, on proceeds of crime the defence argues the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The defence concedes the possession of the cash, but pointed out a lack of evidence on (

a) the proceeds being obtained by crime and (

b) that Mr. Fares knew the proceeds were obtained by crime. [ 27 ] At the end of the day, the defence points out an accused cannot be convicted for being “probably” guilty. See R v Starr , 2000

SCC 40 and R v Lifchus, (SCC), [1997] 3 SCR 320. Analysis [28] Mr. Fares did not present evidence or testify nor did he have to as the Crown has the burden of proof. That said, failing totestify in a case where the defence argues competing inferences has been raised in a case at the Ontario Court of Appeal. In R v Menzies,2015 ONCA 591 at para 3, the Court wrote the following: On the evidence before him, the trial judge was entitled to conclude that the appellant was in possession of heroin for the purposes oftrafficking.

The Crown’s expert witness testified in chief that the amount of heroin seized was a large quantity, equivalent toapproximately 29 hits of heroin. There were a number of other indicia of trafficking in this case, including the variety of drugs found, thepackaging of the heroin in quarter and half gram amounts, the presence of scales and multiple mobile phones, and the $1,650 in cashseized. In addition, the appellant did not testify and thus offered no competing explanation for his possession of the heroin.

In thesecircumstances, we are not persuaded that the verdict was unreasonable. (emphasis added) [29] The Crown, who again has the burden of proof throughout, has to satisfy the Court beyond a reasonable doubt of Mr. Fares’guilt. In Starr, the level of proof is “.... much closer to absolute certainty than to a balance of probabilities.” And in Lichfus, proofbeyond a reasonable doubt “... does not involve proof to an absolute certainty, it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary orfrivolous doubt.” See also Dipnarine at para 25. The Law [30] Mr. Fares is charged with trafficking under Count 1.

Section 5(2) of the CDSA reads as follows: No person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in

Schedule I, II, III or IV. [31] The word “traffic” is defined in s. 2(1) of the CDSA which states: “traffic” means, in respect of a substance included in any of Schedules I to IV, (

a) to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver the substance, (

b) to sell an authorization to obtain the substance, or (

c) to offer to do anything mentioned in paragraph (

a) or (b), otherwise than under the authority of the regulations. [32] Count 3 charges Mr. Fares with producing cocaine.

Section 2 of the CDSA defines “produce” as follows: “produce” means, in respect of a substance included in any of Schedules I to IV, to obtain the substance by any method or processincluding(

a) manufacturing, synthesizing or using any means of altering the chemical or physical properties of the substance, or(

b) cultivating, propagating or harvesting the substance or any living thing from which the substance may be extracted or otherwiseobtained,and includes offer to produce; [emphasis added] [33] Count 7 charges Mr. Fares with being in the possession of proceeds of crime. Section 354(1) of the Criminal Code reads: 354.

(1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowingthat all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from (

a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or (

b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment. [...] Possession [34] Under s. 4(3) of the Criminal Code, possession can be actual or constructive and the constituent elements of control andknowledge can be established on the basis of circumstantial evidence: R v Morelli, 2010 SCC 8. Adding together in a cumulativefashion, the evidence establishes possession by Mr. Fares because: 1. Mr. Fares occupied the residence – it was his.

He entered it with a key; the contract of tenancy establishes this fact as does theresidential address on the immigration papers; he had control over the property. 2. The cocaine or part of it was in different places in his residence and fairly close to him; the gun on or next to the couch cushion,and the cash in his pants. All of the drugs were easily accessible in a drawer of one sort or another, such as the pot with cocaine in it nextto the stove. Knowledge, consent and control easily flow from these facts and thus I am convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the Crown has

established Mr. Fares was in possession of the drugs, weapons and cash, as charged. Circumstantial Evidence [35] Both Crown and Defence argue this case turns on its facts; what must be considered is the circumstantial evidence and theeffect of the whole of it. In a criminal proceeding, this approach is proper. See R v Pham (2005), (ON CA), 77 OR(3d) 401 (CA), aff’d 2006 SCC 26.

In circumstantial cases, Cooper points out the test to be applied is satisfaction beyond a reasonabledoubt that the guilt of the accused is the only reasonable inference. [36] To summarize, is there a rational alternative explanation for the drugs in Mr. Fares’ residence other than he possessed andcontrolled and produced the drugs and then had the cash for the proceeds of the crimes charged? This Court recognizes the dangers withconvicting on the basis of circumstantial evidence only, and instructs itself accordingly. See R v Griffin, 2009 SCC 28.

In other words,caution exists to avoid drawing inferences based on speculation or a narrative that somehow links facts to the inferences sought to bedrawn. The inferences need to be reasonable, based on the evidence before the Court. [37] By looking at intent, and the inferences that may be drawn, and considering the totality of the evidence, the Courtcumulatively takes into account the quantity of the drugs as well as other matters such as scales, score sheets, packaging materials. See Rv Oakes (1983), (ON CA), 40 OR (2d) 660 (CA), aff’d (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103.

In this regard, thetotality of the present case does not include score sheets but also includes: • cocaine and marijuana; • bagging materials with corners ripped off; • pot by the stove with cocaine in it, glassware and cooking utensils; • five cell phones; • loaded prohibited weapon; and • some short potential hand-to-hand exchanges. Conclusion [38] In reaching conclusions on the totality of the circumstantial evidence, the Court reminds itself of the principle that a judgeshould not lose his common sense as he sits and weighs evidence.

As Chief Justice McEachern said in the oft quoted case of R v To(1992), (BC CA), 16 BCAC 223: It must be remembered that we are not expected to treat real life cases as a completely intellectual exercise where no conclusion can bereached if there is the slightest competing possibility. The criminal law requires a very high degree of proof, especially for inferencesconsistent with guilt, but it does not demand certainty. See also R v Ziegler, 2016 ABQB 150 at para 156. [39] On the weapons Counts (4 and 6) the Court finds find Mr. Fares guilty as charged.

The firearm, because of its short barrellength, was prohibited by law and the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt the prohibited weapon was loaded because themagazine with rounds in it was attached or inserted, even if there was not a live round in the chamber.

See R v Wong, 2012 ONCA 432.Count 6 is proven beyond a reasonable doubt as is Count 4 (improper storage) because the loaded firearm was laying on the couch, notstored securely or safely, and thus not in accordance with the law. [40] On the trafficking count, defence concedes simple possession of such a small amount of the seized cocaine, but denies it wasfor trafficking. [41] On the issue of quantity, in R v Bisziel, 2012 ABQB 119 Justice Topolniski states this at para 85: The total amount of cocaine seized was 2.58 grams, with a street value of $170 to $220.

Although it is a relatively small amount, the lawdoes not require a minimum quantity to infer possession for the purpose of trafficking (Chan at paras 23, 24, 27, 32-35). Liability may bejustified even when the quantity of cocaine is small. For example, 2.66 g. was sufficient to lead to conviction in R v Saari, 2006, BCCA288, 277 BCAC 160; 0.3 g in R. v. Lennartsson, 2006 ABCA 189 and 1 g in R. v.

Kirwin, 2006 BCCA 78, 222 BCAC 288. [42] In finding the accused in that case not guilty of trafficking, but guilty of possession, she states at para 86: Despite the existence of scales and score sheets, which are consistent with trafficking, the totality of evidence does not establish beyond areasonable doubt that the seized cocaine was possessed for the purpose of trafficking. Rather, the evidence is equivocal. Essentially, theCrown concedes this in its written submissions. [43] The Court finds Bisziel helpful. On the totality of evidence, the Court finds Mr.

Fares guilty of possession of cocaine, but nottrafficking. Besides the small amounts of cocaine, and the lack of any drug transactions or score sheets in the case before the court, theCrown’s expert also seemed equivocal on the lack of evidence. He said at p. 296: Question: Are you able to offer any comment at all, from the scenario that you were given, the likely level of trafficking that would havebeen going on here?

Answer: Not necessarily. It looked like he was doing a dial-a-dope operation. They never stopped him – or during the hypothetical,never stopped him at the time of the – of their observations. So I couldn’t tell how much money or whether or not there would be anymoney at that time. I suspect there would be. [emphasis added] [44] Additionally, the expert’s testimony referenced the baggies, residue or scale in guarded language that to him appeared to be(such items) See e.g. Transcript pages 284 and 285.

And regarding the potential for drug paraphernalia, the expert did not speak to anyofficers or view any exhibits about this. He did agree several of the items inside Mr. Fares’ residence could be used for consumptionincluding coke cans that were not apparently “found” but the expert admits were in the pictures or eventual photographs (Transcript p.304, Ex 1, photo 38). Another example is a rolled up bill being used as paraphernalia for personal use. (Transcript p. 311; Ex 1. Photos53, 54; 73, 74). [45] The Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt on the production count.

When the CDSA s. 2 definition of“produce” is broken down into its components, an unlawful production of a

Schedule I-IV substance may occur “by any method orprocess” “using any means” to alter the chemical or physical properties of the substance. As stated by MacFarlane, Frater & Michaelson: [w]hile it may seem like over-criminalization to make it an offence to convert one form of a substance to a different form of the samesubstance, the Parliamentary objective is clearly to discourage clandestine drug labs in all of their manifestations.[1] [46] Defence counsel did raise the lack of baking soda, a cutting agent used to produce cocaine, in the photos.

However, othercutting agents can be used and the expert said that baking soda was “typically” used. Other evidence of production includes pots and pansand glassware as per Exhibit 1. In referencing the importance of the glassware and pots and pans, the expert said this (at p. 287): Question: What type of material is used to do this conversation process? Answer: Typically, pots and pans will be utilized. Maybe glassware will be utilized, depending on the level of sophistication. [47] More significantly, there is a matching link between the glassware and the crack cocaine found in Mr. Fares’ residence.

Inother words, the result of the cooking has a similar geometry to the glass dish. As the expert said in forming his opinion at p. 288: Answer: It’s my opinion that these items were utilized to convert power cocaine to crack cocaine. If you even take a look at thephotograph of the cocaine that’s in the wooden box – Question: Is that ‘60’ Answer: So ‘67’ and ‘68’, the piece of crack cocaine that is in the right-hand corner appears to have fairly square lines to it.

The bottomof the glass bowl that was utilized in this photo would have similar lines to it. [48] Having regard to the totality of the evidence in this case, including having examined twice the related similar geometry of thecrack cocaine's shape relative to the glass bowl's shape, the Court infers beyond a reasonable doubt the crack cocaine was producedcontrary to law from the glass bowl.

The court infers beyond a reasonable doubt what was produced in the bowl was cocaine because theglassware was coated in white powder and it was found in the pan and the pan was coated with white powder and that white powder wascertified as cocaine. See also Ex. 1, photos 35-37, 67-68, 83-89. [49] Regarding Count 7, relating to proceeds of crime, the Crown has not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt. Among otherthings, the expert said the money found in the house can mean a number of things (at p. 293): “As I mentioned before, drug trafficking is a cash based system.

And so the – it leads one to believe that the amount of money not heldwithin a financial institution or on their person or hidden within a residence can only – or can mean a number of things, but with all theseother factors, leads me to believe that the money was derived from drug trafficking.” [emphasis added] [50] The careful and guarded testimony of the expert (“leads an expert to believe; can mean a number of things”), combined withthe lack of evidence regarding any drug transaction, no score sheets, no cell phones working; substance on scale not tested, all leave theCourt on a totality of all of the evidence, with a reasonable doubt on Count 7. [51] Mr.

Fares is guilty of possessing marijuana. The defence did not argue this Count and simply put, the Crown proved beyond areasonable doubt he possessed the pieces of drugs certified as cannabis as per Count 2 of the Indictment being contrary to s.4(1) of theControlled Drugs and Substances Act. [52] I find Mr. Fares guilty of possession but not guilty of trafficking under Count 1. I also find Mr. Fares guilty of Counts 2, 3, 4and 6. Also, having found him guilty of Count 6, the Crown invites a stay of Count 5 pursuant to R v Kienapple (SCC),[1975] 1 SCR 729. He is not guilty of Count 7.

Dated at the City of Calgary, Alberta this 12th day of April, 2016.

W.A. Tilleman J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Scott Couper for the Crown Andrea Urquhart for the Accused R v Khalil Oday Fares – Exhibit List Appendix A ** Exhibits 1-27 were pre-marked with identical “VD” numbering in the voir dire (Trial Transcript, pg. 9, line 31 – pg. 13, line 12) Exhibit No. Description Where Located Photo Nos.

Reference in Trial Transcript [ page/line number (Witness) ] 1 Booklet of Photographs: R v Khalil Oday Fares – Search Warrant Photos; 2353 – 50 th Street NE, Calgary, Alberta; May 1, 2012. 2 Affidavit of Delivery sworn by Detective Brad Maclean with copies of Notice of Intention to introduce Certificates of Analysis into evidence and Certificates bearing Health Canada Nos.

C0089235, C0089236, C0089237, C0089238 and C0089239. 26/35 – 28/10 (Maclean) 3 Pink handwritten witness statement in the name of “Kalil”, Alberta Collision Report Form in the name of Khalil Fares, Western Union Customer Receipt in the name of Khalil Fares White 2000 Jeep Cherokee, Alberta licence no.

BFV 9249 (“the Jeep vehicle”) 3-10 87/16 – 88/19 (Doss) 4 Alberta licence plate BFG 0198 the Jeep vehicle 11-12 88/21 – 88/6 (Doss) 5 Canada Social Insurance card, Lebanon driver’s licence and Canada Immigration document in the name of Khalil Fares; Alberta driver’s licence in the name of Samantha Fiesel 2353 – 50 Street NE (“residence”) - on steps leading upstairs from the front door of the residence 15-17 90/4 – 91/20 (Doss) 6 Silver Huawei cell phone Residence – main hallway closet on top shelf 20-- 21 91/30 – 92/14 (Doss)

7 Samsung cell phone Residence – on top of cardboard box on floor of main hallway closet 22-23 92/16 – 41 (Doss) 8 Health Canada envelope no.

C00089239 and Certificate of Analyst no. 1201681 V pertaining to liquid in a seized water bottle – unable to identify substance Residence – main hallway closet 24-25 93/1 – 25; 39- 41 (Doss) 9 Canada Immigration documents, Lebanese driver’s licence, other documentation all in name of Khalil Fares Residence- lower left shelf above the stove in the kitchen 26-33 93/27-37; 94/1- 14 (Doss) 10 Metal pot, glass container, fork and spoon Residence – kitchen cupboard to the right of the stove 34- 37; 83-90 94/16-38; 95/38-41; 109/28-32 (Doss) 10 A Health Canada envelope no.

C0089235 containing scrapings of white residue taken from metal pot and Certificate of Analyst bearing same number – analyzed as cocaine 94/40 – 95/33 (Doss) 11 Remington AirMaster 77 pellet rifle Residence – kitchen counter next to sink 38-40 95/35-36; 96/ 2-34 (Doss) 12 One box of sandwich baggies Residence – inside kitchen refrigerator door, top shelf 41-42 96/36 – 97/25 (Doss) 13 Clear plastic baggie with corners ripped off and apparent residue inside the bag Residence – on floor in front of kitchen refrigerator 43-44 97/27 – 98/10 (Doss) 14 Driver’s licence from Lebanon in the name of Khalil Fares with picture Residence – in cupboard next to kitchen refrigerator 45-46 98/20 – 99/8 (Doss) 15 Tenancy agreement in name of Khalil Fares relating to 2353 50 th Street NE Calgary, Alberta Residence – in cupboard next to kitchen refrigerator 47-49 99/10-24 (Doss) 16 Empty prescription bottle bearing name of Khalil Fares and ripped off corner of baggie.

The prescription bottle was found empty.

Residence – in a garbage pail next to the kitchen cupboard 50-52 99/26 – 100/16; 109/18-19 (Doss) 17 Swipe card bearing the word “Delta” and a playing card, both with a powdery with substance on them Residence - kitchen table 53- 54; 91-92 100/18-33 (Doss) 18 Two Samsung cell phones Residence – underneath the kitchen table 55 101/4-15 (Doss) 19 .9 mm Firestar handgun Residence –Between cushion and arm of couch located next to kitchen table in the living room 56-59 24/35 – 26/40; 102/3-26 (Maclean) 101/17-34; 102/ (Doss) 19 A Empty magazine for the handgun, loose rounds from the magazine, a spent casing 60-61 101/36-102/1; 102/28-32 (Doss) 20 Box of loose ammunition, .9 mm Lugar rounds Residence –On a bookshelf located in the living room approximately 10 feet across the room from the couch 62-64 102/34 – 104/3 (Doss) 21 Health Canada envelope no.

C0089238 containing two seized suspected marihuana joints weighing 0.5 grams in total, one burned and the other unburned; Certificate of Analyst bearing the same number – analyzed as cannabis marihuana Residence –Joints located on top shelf of same bookcase located in living room 65-66 104/5-38; 105/9-11 (Doss) 22 Clear plastic bag that had held 4.0 grams of a white powdery substance Residence –In a wooden box on the second shelf of the same book shelf 67-68 104/40 – 105/7; 105/13-27 (Doss) 22 A Health Canada envelope no.

C0089236 containing the white powdery substance that was emptied from Exhibit 22; Certificate of Analyst bearing the same number – analyzed as cocaine 67-68 105/29 – 106/13 (Doss) 23 Health Canada envelope no.

C0089237 containing hard white substance weighing 4.0 grams; Certificate of Analyst bearing the same number – analyzed as cocaine Residence –Hard white substance located in same wooden box on second shelf of bookcase 67-68 106/15 – 107/14 (Doss) 24 Scale with white powdery substance on it Residence –On the second shelf of the same bookcase 69-70 107/16-41 (Doss) 25 iPhone with cracked red case Residence –On the second shelf of the same bookcase 71-72 108/1-29 (Doss) 26 Copy of Affidavit – Firearms Officer sworn by Bernard W. Coles December 10, 2012

27 Copy of Warrant to Search – residence located at 2353 – 50 Avenue NE, Calgary, Alberta and a white 2000 Jeep Cherokee, Alberta licence BFV 9259 28 Curriculum Vitae of Detective Colin Harris (expert) [marked as VD-29 in the voir dire] 274/8 – 275/7 9 (Harris) 29 Certificate of Analyst of John Fulton, Firearms Examiner dated May 22, 2012 [marked as VD-30 in the voir dire] 311/40 – 312/17 30 Copy of transcripts of the testimony of Cst Sean Sherman from the preliminary inquiry [marked as VD-31 in the voir dire] 312/19 – 313/10 31 Copies of three Traffic Safety Act Certificates [marked as VD-32 in the voir dire] 313/12-27