2018 QCCQ 3839, 2018 QCCQ 3839

R. c. Dhingra 2018 QCCQ 3839 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL CRIMINAL DIVISION No: 500-01-099546-134 DATE: June 6, 2018 ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE FLAVIA K. LONGO, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN PROSECUTRIX v.

SONINDER DHINGRA ACCUSED ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The accused was charged with trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and importation of crystal meth and cocaine as well as conspiracy to traffic substances mentioned in Annex I of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act . [ 2 ] Further to information from various sources, the Montreal Police began an investigation into trafficking of cocaine and crystal meth.

This particular investigation was dubbed Projet Abri . After several weeks of surveillance, they identified the hideout for the drugs as well as a target named Jean-Philippe Guérette. [ 3 ] The surveillance continued until police were able to identify and arrest several suspects in the early afternoon of November 13 th , 2013 further to their ins and outs at the drug hideout.

At the time of their arrests, these suspects were all in possession of bags of various shapes, sizes and colours containing the narcotics. [ 4 ] The day before the arrests, the accused went to the United States with his mistress, Jenny Lacoursière for less than 24 hours. [ 5 ] They made their way back to Canada the next morning in separate vehicles. They both crossed a border gate being guarded by Stephanie McLelland who was known to the accused. Lacoursière was admitted first after a very brief stop at the gate.

The accused was admitted a few minutes later after a lengthier stop. [ 6 ] Lacoursière went straight to the Ikea situated on Cavendish Boulevard after she passed the border and parked her vehicle in the parking lot.

She then went to the accused’s car and waited with him for his acquaintances to arrive so that they could take bags that he had transferred to her vehicle the night before. [ 7 ] She was informed of the bags being transferred to her vehicle only once they crossed the border back into Canada. [ 8 ] Bags from her vehicle were transferred to a Toyota Camry less than two hours later by Guérette and a man named Richard Desrosiers. They were then brought to the drug stash for distribution.

During the various arrests, police seized large quantities of cocaine and crystal meth. [ 9 ] The accused was intercepted by police and arrested in the evening. [ 10 ] The accused did not testify at trial. ISSUES [ 11 ] Was there a conspiracy to traffic cocaine and crystal meth? If so, was the accused a party to the conspiracy?

[ 12 ] Was there an importation into Canada of illegal substances? [ 13 ] If so, did the prosecution establish the accused’s implication in the importation, the possession for the purpose of trafficking and the trafficking of cocaine and crystal meth beyond a reasonable doubt? CONTEXT [ 14 ] At the outset of the trial, a list of admissions was tendered into evidence. [1] Part of that list pertained to the nature and quantities of the narcotics seized being admitted, to wit: 94 kg of cocaine and 15 kg of crystal meth. [ 15 ] The identification of the accused was not an issue.

The surveillance [ 16 ] During the course of the morning of November 13 th , 2013, Guérette used counter-surveillance techniques for the purpose of avoiding detection from the police authorities. [ 17 ] In the late morning, he went to his residence at 1414 Chomedey, and exited less than 10 minutes later with a khaki coloured backpack. He left the area on foot and walked to René-Lévesque Street just west of Guy where he entered the passenger side of a white Toyota Camry.

Desrosiers was the driver of the vehicle. [ 18 ] They headed to the Ikea outlet situated at 9191 Cavendish and the car was parked on the south end of the building. [ 19 ] Meanwhile, a Dodge Charger with a push bar was parked diagonally in the Ikea parking lot at a very close distance to Cavendish Boulevard. The Charger’s motor was running and the vehicle was parked in a way that enabled the driver to monitor who was entering the parking lot. [ 20 ] At 12:23 pm, the white Camry was parked in an area of the Ikea parking lot where there was not much circulation.

Guérette exited the vehicle and opened the trunk of a white Kia Optima which was parked next to the Camry. He was followed by Desrosiers. The trunk seemed to have been opened from a distance. [ 21 ] Guérette took hold of 2 objects from the trunk. The objects seemed to be very heavy. His arms were spread from his body and his shoulders were low as he carried them. [2] He left the Kia and placed the 2 objects in the Toyota Camry. [ 22 ] He then returned to the trunk of the Kia Optima. He removed a black blanket and took 2 black and red sports bags that were underneath it.

He then put the bags in the trunk of the White Camry. [ 23 ] Then, Desrosiers removed a dark coloured sports bag from the trunk of the Kia and put it in the trunk of the Camry. [ 24 ] After that, Guérette took another dark coloured sports bag from the Kia’s trunk, and gave it to Desrosiers who placed it in the trunk of the Camry.

The process of transferring the bags from one vehicle to another took approximately three minutes. [ 25 ] In that same period, the black Dodge Charger was seen heading towards the South side of the Ikea building and then circling the area around the Camry from West to East. [ 26 ] At a certain point, the Charger was being driven by an unknown male driver. The vehicle stopped as it pointed to the East and a woman appeared. She was later identified as Jenny Lacoursière.

There was no one around and the police’s conclusion was that the woman exited the Charger and walked towards the Kia. [ 27 ] Desrosiers and Guérette got into the white Camry. [ 28 ] A video from the Ikea showing the Charger and the Camry around the time of the bag exchanges was filed into evidence. [3] [ 29 ] At about 12:28 pm, the Camry drove off. Lacoursière sat in the driver’s side of the Kia and drove off as well. She was followed by the Charger.

The three vehicles left the parking lot of the Ikea at the same time, and then headed into different directions. [ 30 ] At 12:45 pm, the Camry was next seen as it was parked backwards on the South-West side of the parking lot facing 3737 St- Jacques Street with no one on board. However, Desrosiers was spotted standing in the bicycle path just south of the lot. The surveillance team had lost sight of the Camry for a short period and had not seen Guérette or Desrosiers as they exited the vehicle. [ 31 ] Guérette and a woman named Souhila Boumali were observed leaving 749 Agnès Street on foot at 12:51 pm.

At 12:53 pm, they reached Desrosiers who was still in the bike path, and the three of them entered the Camry. They headed in the direction of Irène Street where the car was then parked by Desrosiers who waited in the driver’s seat for 10 minutes, and then drove back to the parking lot facing 3737 St-Jacques. [ 32 ] At 1:01 pm, Guérette and Boumali walked back to the Agnès Street address via the alley situated just off Laporte Street.

They each had 2 heavy sports bags on their shoulders whose dimensions were 24 inches by 18 inches by 12 inches. [ 33 ] They were observed entering the Agnès Street address through the front door with the bags at 1:02 pm. At 1:16 pm, Guérette exited the address and left the area on foot via the alleyway. He had a heavy, dark coloured sports bag on his shoulder, with white

writing whose dimensions were 24 inches by 18 inches by 12 inches. [ 34 ] At 1:18 pm, Desrosiers exited the Camry and opened the trunk of the vehicle while Guérette met him and put the sports bag in the trunk. Guérette went back to the Agnès Street address and entered through the basement door at 1:20 pm. [ 35 ] Desrosiers drove away and was intercepted by police at 1:22 pm. He was arrested, and his car was searched.

The police found a black Nike sports bag in the trunk with 10 kg of cocaine. [4] [ 36 ] At 1:35 pm, Guérette was spotted as he left the Agnès Street address with a khaki green coloured backpack and a red and black sports bag which seemed to be very heavy. The backpack was very similar to the one that he was seen with in the morning. He put both bags in the trunk of a taxi and closed it. He then sat in the back passenger seat. The taxi left and stopped after a short distance. Guérette exited and removed the backpack and sports bag from the trunk. At 1:38 pm, he was arrested by police and the bags were seized.

The backpack contained 8 kg of cocaine and the red sports bag contained 22 kg of cocaine. [5] [ 37 ] At 2:45 pm, a Nissan Altima with an unknown male driver was seen parking in front of the stash. The unknown male entered the building at 2:54 pm. [ 38 ] He exited the building one minute later with 2 heavy black sports bags that were the same size as the ones previously described as having been in possession of Guérette and Boumali. He put them in his trunk and returned to the building and almost immediately exited with a 3 rd sports bag that was red and black with the same dimensions as the first two.

The 3 rd sports bag was placed in the Nissan Altima at 2:56 pm. [ 39 ] He then returned to the building and exited with a fourth sports bag that was black, heavy, and had the same dimensions as the first three bags. He placed the fourth bag in the trunk of his car. As he was closing his trunk, he was arrested by police at 2:59 pm.

He was later identified as Michel Bouchard. [ 40 ] Bouchard’s vehicle was searched and the police seized the following: • One red Timberland sports bag; • Two black sports bags with the Nike logo similar to the one found in Desrosiers’ vehicle; • One black sports bag with the inscription Amber. [ 41 ] The bags contained 54 kg of cocaine and 15 kg of crystal meth. [6] [ 42 ] Some of the packages containing the narcotics had logos on them. [ 43 ] The white Kia was followed to 154 Beauchemin in Ile Bizard.

At 12:52 pm, Lacoursière entered the address and exited shortly thereafter with a dog, and she left in her vehicle. Police made verifications regarding the 154 Beauchemin address that resulted in a link with the Dodge Charger which was registered to that address. This address was the residence of the accused. [ 44 ] On November 13 th , 2013 in the early evening, Detective Sergeant Victor Perna, who was one of the officers tasked with taking photographs that day, returned to his office and viewed all the surveillance pictures.

He saw a picture of a black Dodge Charger with a push bar and recognized it from a previous observation. He also recognized the male in the photograph and identified him as Soninder Dhingra. [7] [ 45 ] In order to validate his findings, he accessed Facebook where he searched under the accused’s name. He found a page linked to the accused with the picture of the same individual, and the same vehicle. [8] [ 46 ] Lacoursière, the driver and owner of the white Kia, was arrested on November 27 th , 2013 by Perna.

She was searched and 3 cellular telephones were found on her person as well as one cellular phone in her Kia, and a Garmin GPS. Further to her arrest, Perna met her on at least 5 occasions and corresponded with her via text message. The Searches [ 47 ] Fingerprints were found on all the packages containing the narcotics but none belonged to the accused. He was intercepted as he spoke on the telephone in a foreign language at 9:23 pm on November 13 th , 2013 and arrested at 9:28 pm for possession for the purpose of trafficking narcotics.

He was searched and the police seized 2 blackberry telephones and $130 in Canadian funds. [ 48 ] At 9:40 pm, police intercepted a Hummer that had departed from the accused’s residence. The accused’s wife, their 4-year-old daughter as well as the child’s nanny were aboard. The child was wearing her pyjamas and the women wore yoga attire.

Before the interception, they were seen leaving the family home quickly and depositing something in the trunk of the vehicle. [ 49 ] The Hummer was searched and the police seized approximately $150 000 in cash and some gold bars. [ 50 ] The accused’s home was searched on two occasions. The first time was on November 14 th , 2013 in the early hours of the morning where police seized 10000$ in American funds from the master bedroom.

The second time was on November 27 th , 2013 further to his 2 nd arrest. [ 51 ] During the searches of his residence, the police did not seize any narcotics, notebooks, address books or contact lists containing the names Desrosiers and Guérette.

[ 52 ] The accused’s Dodge Charger was also searched on November 27 th , 2013 but it was negative. [ 53 ] A search of the drug stash at 749 Agnès took place on the evening of November 13 th , 2013. During the search, the police seized several items from the basement, namely: • In a shoebox, a Ziploc bag containing 81 grams of cocaine was found.

This Ziploc was accompanied by an empty kilo bag [9] ; • A lease for 749 Agnès which stated that the apartment was being rented to Boumali and Guérette [10] ; • A Hilroy copybook that contained handwritten notes with several names and numbers including the following [11] : 1. Sunny 43000K; 2. Sunny 42700; 3. Sunny 11990; 4. Sunny 43K; 5. – 87750 sunny; 6. Sunny 33K. • A red address book. The names Soninder, Dhingra, Soni, and Sunny did not appear in this book. [ 54 ] On November 27 th , 2013, Jenny Lacoursière’s Kia Optima was searched a short while after her arrest.

A GPS was found in the vehicle and seized [12] as well as a flip phone and some material pertaining to her job as a massage therapist. The trunk of the vehicle opened from a distance by using the button on the remote. [13] There were no tests done to verify the presence of cocaine in the vehicle.

The border agent [ 55 ] Laura Smith is a superintendent with the CBSA. [14] Since 2007, she had been supervising border agents at the Lacolle location. [ 56 ] Her experience showed that the task of the primary inspection agent at the border was to wait for vehicles to arrive at which time a picture of the license plate was taken, and the computer would reveal whether or not there was a surveillance notice in the system for the vehicle in question. [ 57 ] The process of verifying the passport, and questioning the traveler for admission purposes into Canada took on average 50 to 120 seconds, but there was no set rule as to how much time a vehicle must spend at the primary security booth during this process. [ 58 ] On November 13 th , 2013, border agent Stephanie McLelland was working at booth 302. [ 59 ] Video footage from that day showed a white vehicle arriving at McLelland’s gate at 9:48:51 am.

The vehicle left about 15 seconds later. It also showed a dark gray vehicle at the same gate at 9:49:14 am, and the traveler gave the customs agent a passport, and a cup of coffee. The border agents were not allowed to accept any goods from travelers for security reasons. The passport was given back to the traveler at 9:50:47 am and the traveler left the gate at 9:52:57 am. [ 60 ] Smith produced a traveler history document pertaining to a vehicle registered under number [...V] and dated November 13 th , 2013. [15] The person who drove the vehicle was Lacoursière. She passed through McLelland’s gate at 9:44:42.

Smith explained that there was a discrepancy between the time indicated on the video footage and the time indicated on the traveler document. [ 61 ] Smith produced another traveler history document pertaining to a vehicle registered under number […4] also dated November 13 th , 2013. [16] The person driving the vehicle was the accused. He passed through McLelland’s gate at 9:45:17 am. [ 62 ] McLelland left her post at 11 am for reasons related to her health. [ 63 ] On December 2 nd , 2014, McLelland was arrested for conspiracy to import, breach of trust and corruption.

She was searched and the police seized several objects including 2 cellular telephones: one white Samsung and one black Motorola. [ 64 ] On December 4 th , 2014, Daniel Blain from the Integrated Technological Crime Unit (“ITCU”) of the RCMP received the white Samsung with the model number SGH-I 747M seized from McLelland. Data from the cellular telephone as well as its SIM card were extracted. [17] The telephone number that appeared during the SIM card extraction was […58]. [ 65 ] He also received a Samsung cellular telephone with the model number SGH-I 397M and proceeded to extract data from it.

The telephone number associated to this cellular was […64]. An extraction report pertaining to this number, and dated October 16 th , 2017, was filed into evidence. [18] Furthermore, a physical extraction report was filed into evidence [19] and it pertained to the same telephone number, […64]. [ 66 ] Sylvie Gill, investigator from Rogers Communications confirmed that the telephone number […58] belonged to Stephanie McLelland. The telephone associated to this number was a Samsung Galaxy.

[ 67 ] She also confirmed that telephone number […64] belonged to the accused, and the telephone associated to it was a Blackberry. [ 68 ] For the purpose of her mandate in the present matter, she prepared a call registry that was tendered in evidence. [20] [ 69 ] During her testimony, she explained that on November 12 th , 2013 at 11:27 am, the subscriber for number […64] was in the United States. On November 13 th , 2013 at 9:40:57 am, that same subscriber was at the Highway 15/USA Border.

Jenny Lacoursière [ 70 ] She became acquainted with the accused in early 2013 when she posted ads for her services as a massage therapist. She had a job with the Canadian Armed Forces but went on hiatus because she was in a state of depression. She had just broken up with her boyfriend and moved to Montreal where she did not know anyone. [ 71 ] The accused found her through the ads and called her because his wife was pregnant. She went to the couple’s home in Ile Bizard and provided massage services to her for which she was paid. In a very short period, she developed a close relationship with the couple.

They made her feel like she was part of the family. She was impressed by the accused. He had class. [ 72 ] He told her that he had various university degrees and that his father had condos in India as well as a gold and jewelry factory. She concluded that he was financially at ease. [ 73 ] It became apparent to her that the couple’s marriage was in trouble and a short while later, she became intimate with the accused and later on, with his wife as well. [ 74 ] During the course of the summer, he told her that he was in love with her.

She believed him, and during that period, they took a 10-day road trip together to the US so that she could relax. They rode together in one vehicle while an acquaintance of the accused, known as Marilena, followed them in her own car. [ 75 ] The purpose of the trip was for him to retrieve money obtained from the rental of the condos that he owned in India. During the course of that trip, she saw several Adidas bags filled with money that was rolled up in saran wrap by Marilena. The sports bags were soft in consistency with white lines and made from thin material.

They were cheap bags with 2 handles, a long strap and a zipper in the middle, measuring 3 feet by 2 feet wide. The bags were smaller than her bag that can be seen in photograph 7 of P-37. [ 76 ] When they came back to Montreal, the accused gave her a $10,000 gift. [ 77 ] In the early fall, he became jealous and controlling and wanted to pay her to stay home because he did not want her to work as a massage therapist anymore.

She refused, they had a falling out, and their relationship ended. [ 78 ] Despite their quarrel, she continued to communicate with the accused’s wife because she did not want to lose her. [ 79 ] She did not speak to the accused again until he communicated with her in early November.

She was happy to hear from him. [ 80 ] They went out for supper and he told her that he wanted to take her to the US for an overnight trip where she could go shopping and they could spend the night together. [ 81 ] The accused organized the getaway and he chose the hotel. [ 82 ] She left her dog with the accused’s wife the night before they departed for the US because she wanted to go to the border crossing directly from her home. [ 83 ] She programmed her GPS to go to the US. [ 84 ] They met at a gas station near the US border on the morning of November 12 th .

She drove her car, a white Kia Optima, and the accused drove his own car, a black Dodge. [ 85 ] At approximately 9 am, her turn came to cross the border. The accused had already cleared customs without incident but her vehicle was searched. She had 2 cellular telephones in her possession. Her work telephone, and her personal cellular phone bearing number […80]. The accused had a Blackberry, and his cellular phone number was registered in hers. [ 86 ] When they crossed the border into the US, they stopped for gas.

The location where they spent the night was approximately one hour away from the border. [ 87 ] They also stopped at a Wal-Mart to buy American cellphones in order to avoid paying long distance fees. They programmed the cellular telephones and they then went to the hotel to check-in. She then went shopping for 2 or 3 hours in the afternoon. She was alone for one or two hours before the accused met up with her. They went to 2 outlets but drove separately. [ 88 ] She bought approximately $300 worth of goods which the accused paid for in cash. She never had to use any of her own money.

They had dinner at approximately 6 pm after stopping at the hotel so that she could freshen up. [ 89 ] Before going back to the hotel for the night, the accused had bought some chicken at Wal-Mart to give to an individual that he had to meet. [ 90 ] When they went back to their hotel room, an unidentified man knocked on their door. He stayed in the room with them for

about 5 minutes and spoke to the accused in a foreign language, probably Hindi. He then took the chicken and left. The accused had told her not to ask too many questions so she didn’t for fear of offending him. [ 91 ] During the course of the evening, the accused moved both vehicles and parked them in front of their room. He did not have anything in his hands when he left to move the cars, and she had no memory of any bags that he would have had in his possession. They went to sleep around 9 or 10 pm. [ 92 ] The next morning, the accused put the suitcases in their vehicles while she prepared to leave.

They picked up their breakfast at the Subway situated in the Wal-Mart, they gassed up and headed back to Canada in separate cars at approximately 8:30 or 9 am. [ 93 ] She was stressed about going to the border since she had been subjected to a search at US Customs. She felt reassured when the accused told her that his cousin, Stephanie McLelland who is a customs officer, was working that day and that they would be going through her gate.

She had met his cousin a few months prior because McLelland had gone to her home to pick up $5,000 further to a request that she had received from the accused. [ 94 ] As they drove to the border, they communicated by telephone. The accused told her which gate to go to and he mentioned that they had to hurry since his cousin was sick and had to leave. [ 95 ] When she stopped at McLelland’s gate, she gave her passport and left quickly.

The accused stopped at her gate right after, gave her a coffee and spoke to her for 5 or 10 minutes before continuing his route. [ 96 ] After crossing the border, she stayed in contact with the accused, and they used their regular cellular telephones. She was supposed to pick-up her dog before going home but the accused told her that the plans had changed. [ 97 ] He had to meet some people at Ikea first because he put some bags in her car and he didn’t want them to see which car he was driving or where he lived. She assumed that there was money in the bags.

Her testimony is not clear as to the moment when this discussion took place. It was either right after they crossed the Canadian border or once they were together in the accused’s vehicle in the parking lot of the Ikea. [ 98 ] This sudden change in plans made her angry and she told him that she hoped that he did not put anything illegal in her vehicle.

He told her that he would never do that since he wanted to marry her. [ 99 ] He gave her the address of the Ikea that she manually inserted into her GPS and drove directly to the parking lot of the establishment which took between 60 and 90 minutes. [ 100 ] When she arrived at the parking lot, the accused told her to park her vehicle. She left her car in a parking spot and got into his car. They drove around in the aisles for a while before stopping in a parking spot.

She was not happy but she waited with him in his car that was parked one row of vehicles away from where her car [21] was parked in order to have a proper view of her trunk. [ 101 ] They waited in the accused’s car for 60 to 90 minutes. She was stressed. While they waited, the accused was in contact with the individuals that he was waiting for, but she does not know if they communicated by telephone or by text. She then saw two unknown men come out of a taxi and go to her vehicle [22] where they removed some things from her trunk.

The accused had her car keys and opened her trunk from a distance. [ 102 ] They left the premises in the taxi. In her examination in chief, she said that she saw them take an unknown number of bags from her vehicle. During her cross-examination, she admitted that she did not see any bags. This is why she used the term “things”. [ 103 ] She believed that she was transporting money because of what she learned from the accused’s acquaintance, Marilena, during their 10-day trip to the US. [ 104 ] She got into her car, picked up her dog at the accused’s home and left.

She did not hear from him until a few days later when he called her and told her that he wanted to meet with her. [ 105 ] They met at his home and he told her that he had been arrested. He confessed that there were drugs in her car and that she had nothing to worry about since she had not been arrested. She had cut all ties with him from that point on. [ 106 ] She trusted him and had no reason to doubt what he had said about his source of income. [ 107 ] When he told her about his arrest, she felt betrayed. She was arrested by Detective Sergeant Perna on November 27 th , 2013, and she spent a few days in jail.

The double agent [ 108 ] Kathleen Grenier is a Detective Sergeant with the Sureté du Québec. She acted as an undercover in the present matter almost one year after the events in question. [ 109 ] In August of 2014, she was asked by the RCMP to infiltrate an individual who was trafficking narcotics via the United States by using drug mules. The objective was to have him hire her as a drug courier. [ 110 ] She was an investigative tool and she had a cover man who created scenarios for her to execute. In the present file, she enacted 26 scenarios, from 23 to 48, and took notes in French of what transpired.

However, her conversations with the accused were in English. During the time of her implication in this matter, she was in constant communication with her cover man. [ 111 ] She made no decisions. Her cover man gave her instructions and she executed them.

[ 112 ] In the present matter, her stage name was Kathleen Gravel. She was given a picture of the target. During her testimony, she identified the target as being the accused. She was also given a cellular telephone bearing the number […36] that she used to communicate with him. [ 113 ] During her first mission numbered 23, she went to Monster Gym in order to familiarize herself with the location. She questioned the clerk about the personal trainers and was given the card of Claude Groulx who was also the accused’s trainer. She met the trainer and they scheduled a training session for the next day.

After their meeting, she exercised at the gym and saw the accused. [ 114 ] The next day, she went back to the gym and signed up for a one-month membership. She exercised with the trainer and as she was leaving, she noticed that Mr. Groulx was training the accused. [ 115 ] A few days later, at scenario 27, she went back to the gym to train with Mr. Groulx and as her session was ongoing, her colleagues Blanchette and Pardy went to see her. They too were portraying a role in the scenario where they gave her $1,000 in front of the trainer and told her that she could pursue her career as a stripper if she wanted.

She demonstrated to Groulx that she was in shock and he sympathised with her. [ 116 ] A few days later, she went back to the gym to train with Groulx. When she got there, he was already training the accused. She went to see him and apologized for the other day. When she trained with him, he spoke to her about the accused and how he wanted to do competitions. [ 117 ] She did not see the accused again until scenario 34 when she trained with Groulx and the accused asked him a question as he trained her. Groulx introduced them and they shook hands.

The accused showed her pictures of his transformation and she told him that he worked out very hard. He seemed flattered. [ 118 ] The next scenario of importance is numbered 38. She trained alone at the gym and when she finished, she asked the accused if he wanted to have coffee with her. He accepted immediately. They went to a Tim Horton’s located near the gym in separate cars and stayed there for almost 90 minutes. He drove a black Dodge Charger. The accused was gentlemanly.

He opened the door for her and paid for the coffee. [ 119 ] She spoke about her children and about how she had already worked as a stripper. She told him that she was looking for a 2 nd job because she needed money. He told her that his story was one of rags to riches. [ 120 ] He came to Canada, worked hard, acquired properties in India and lived off the income produced by those investments. He also told her that he reached the one million dollar mark, and that his life was like a movie.

Because of this, he semi-quit working. [ 121 ] He gave her his telephone number: […64] and told her that she could text him whenever she wanted. She had a cellular telephone that was provided to her by the RCMP. After scenario 38, they began exchanging text messages. [ 122 ] Just before scenario 40 in mid-October 2014, she texted him because she wanted to meet him for coffee. They agreed to meet at Tim Horton’s again. She trained and went to meet him right after.

He arrived late and a few minutes later, she received a telephone call from her colleague Pardy who was assuming the role of her ex. [ 123 ] When she hung up, she explained to the accused that he was coming to the coffee shop. Pardy arrived with Blanchette. He gave her money again and insinuated, once more, that she could strip if she wanted. The two men left. [ 124 ] She cried and asked the accused if he had a job for her. He asked her if she could leave for a few days and whether or not she had a valid passport.

He told her that he would give her a cellphone but that he needed to sell the idea of her working with him to the “old man” first because he was not alone in his venture and because she could be an undercover. [ 125 ] She was willing to do anything as long as it did not involve sex. He told her that he was not in that type of business and that the last time that he was arrested, he had 84 kg or 94 kg which isn’t much because right now, it’s a lot more than that. Under normal circumstances, his family members worked for him therefore he could not make any promises since he was not the one taking the decisions.

He would get back to her the next day. [ 126 ] A few days later, just before scenario 41, she texted the accused because she wanted to discuss their previous conversation. She waited for him outside the gym and he suggested that they go to the coffee shop. When they arrived at Tim Horton’s, he told her that he had not spoken with the old man yet because he was on a trip. [ 127 ] She noticed that the accused had 3 cellular telephones and that he had a discussion in a foreign language with his black Samsung. He would be seeing the old man during the weekend and would get back to her regarding the employment.

Their meeting in the coffee shop lasted almost one hour. [ 128 ] In the weeks that followed, she texted him several times and tried to meet him in person but he did not make himself available until scenario 48 in late November when they had a discussion at the health bar of the gym. He told her that his uncle did not want to meet her because she could be a set-up, she denied that this was the case. He offered to speak to his friend who was the owner of Thursday’s bar to see if he could hire her as a bartender, and she accepted.

After this meeting, she never saw the accused again. [ 129 ] At the behest of her cover man, she continued to communicate with him through text messages [23] that became sexual in nature. She called him babe and attempted on several occasions to send him a photograph of herself in a suggestive pose where her thong could be seen peering slightly above her jeans. He never received the photograph because of a technical difficulty linked to her cellular telephone. [ 130 ] Her attempt to infiltrate was unsuccessful. Her last text message to him was on December 3rd, 2014 to which she received no response.

The specialized police witnesses Cyprian Hamryszak [ 131 ] He was an expert in computer forensics for the Montreal Police. [ 132 ] He was given the GPS seized from Lacoursière’s vehicle, and was mandated to extract all the information pertaining to the movements registered by the GPS on November 12 th and 13 th , 2013. [ 133 ] The extraction showed a path to the US on November 12 th , 2013 [24] starting at 7:44 am with several stops occurring during the course of the day.

No more paths were registered as of 7:51 pm. [ 134 ] The extraction also showed that the GPS began to register a path on November 13 th , 2013 [25] as of 6:29 am and that there was a stop in a parking lot for approximately 48 minutes between 8:17 am and 9:05 am. It could have been the parking lot of a Wal-Mart. [ 135 ] Once the vehicle passed the US border, it went straight to the Ikea. No stops were made, and the Ikea address was not entered manually into the GPS. [ 136 ] The GPS stopped registering a path at approximately 10:40 am [26] at the Ikea parking lot. The next path was registered as of 12:28 pm.

Handy Hilaire [ 137 ] Hilaire is a police officer with the RCMP and was a member of their ITCU. [ 138 ] In this matter, he was asked by the SPVM to extract data from a Blackberry Z10. This was the cellular telephone that belonged to the accused. [ 139 ] Certain parts of the extraction were of particular interest here because they pertained to deleted text message exchanges between the accused and Lacoursière as well as exchanges between the accused and McLelland. [27] The particularities of these exchanges will be discussed later on in the judgment.

Martin Groulx [ 140 ] Detective Sergeant Martin Groulx was an expert witness for the prosecution. For the purpose of the present matter, he was declared an expert in narcotics accounting. His report was tendered in evidence. [28] [ 141 ] He was tasked with analyzing several documents seized at various locations on November 13 th , 2013 for the purpose of establishing that the said documents were related to the trafficking of narcotics. [ 142 ] Page 5 of his report referred to a front list seized at the stash. [29] This document did not contain any dates. A front list is a client list with information about them.

This list is written by the seller or the distributor of the narcotics. The objective is to keep track of what the clients buy. The list must be simple for the seller but complicated for the police to understand. [ 143 ] There were numbers on the front list in the present matter that were consistent with the price of one kilogram of cocaine which is 43 000$. For example, SUNNY 43k. [ 144 ] There were also expenses relating to the organization. The word “taxi” was mentioned on a few occasions in this front list next to small amounts.

Groulx explained that Guérette often moved around by taking taxis and that the small amounts were deducted from the list, for example: • - 80 taxi; • - 160 taxi. [ 145 ] On that same front list, Groulx believed that Guérette took a salary from the organization. That salary was reflected in the following inscriptions: • Payday -5k; • - 10k payday. [ 146 ] The 5k referred to $5,000, the 10k referred to $10,000. [ 147 ] According to Groulx, the numbers that did not have a minus symbol in front of them were drug purchases made by clients.

The Sunny that was referred to in the document had a working capital with the organization. [ 148 ] For example, on the list, the inscription Sunny 11940 meant a purchase of what could be ¼ kg of cocaine. Therefore, the debt to the organization increased. The inscription -87750 sunny referred to a reimbursement of the debt, possibly for 2 kg of cocaine. [ 149 ] Accounting documents were seized from Desrosiers [30] and Bouchard [31] when they were arrested.

[150] An exhibit seized from Desrosiers’ Camry was a handwritten note[32] that referred to logos. One of the logos referred to inthe note was the Audi symbol. According to Groulx, it was clear that this referred to logos found on the kilos of cocaine. [151] During the sampling of the kilos in order for them to be subjected to expertise, all the kilos that were unwrapped had a logo.Generally, the logos were used to differentiate the lots or specific organizations.

In this matter, Groulx observed logos such as BOLD,XL, and a logo that resembled the Audi symbol. [152] He was unable to link the name Sunny to the name Dhingra. ANALYSIS The testimony of Jenny Lacoursière [153] She had several health issues and had been battling with depression since before meeting the accused. In 2012, she attemptedsuicide and was being followed by medical professionals. She was taking several types of medication including Ativan when needed tohelp her with her anxiety.

During her testimony, she stated that she was in a state of depression and that she ingested her regularmedication but no Ativan. [154] She was initially accused of trafficking and importation but further to an agreement with the Prosecution, she pleaded guilty[33] to trafficking in property obtained by crime the value of which was inferior to $5,000. She was sentenced on October 2nd,2017 to a conditional sentence of imprisonment for 2 years less one day, and has a criminal record because of her involvement in thismatter.

She pleaded guilty despite the fact that she never saw any bags with money in them. [155] The Court has self-imposed a Vetrovec[34] warning regarding her testimony, and has concluded that the vast majority must berejected. [156] This rejection is due to the following: • The first time she stated that the accused confessed to her that there were narcotics in the bags was during her testimony attrial; • This statement regarding the accused’s confession was made almost 5 years after her arrest; • At the time of her arrest, she stated to the authorities that she wanted to cooperate with them, her objective being toobtain an acquittal for herself.

During that time, she also participated in a 7 hour police interrogation; • She testified at the accused’s preliminary inquiry, and was in contact with police officers Veillette and Perna during theentire process. These officers had her personal cellphone number; • She partook in at least one meeting with a prosecutor in this case, and established a relationship with Detective SergeantPerna. During her testimony, she referred to him as “Victor”.

She met him on at least five occasions because he would drive her tocourt when her presence was required; • Despite all of these opportunities, she never disclosed this confession to anyone until she came before the Court at trial; • At trial, she painted a clear portrait to the effect that she despised the accused because he ruined her life. Her sole objectivewas to save herself and to make the accused pay for what he put her through. [157] For all these reasons, her credibility was undermined, and the segments of her testimony that were uncorroborated must be setaside.

Circumstantial evidence and the drawing of inferences [158] The Crown bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and this burden must not be applied to each piece of evidencethat it tenders. It is the totality of the evidence that must be examined in order for the trier of fact to conclude that the prosecution hasfulfilled its burden.

Furthermore, the Court must ask itself whether or not the evidence is consistent with the guilt of the accused, andinconsistent with any other reasonable, rational explanation. [159] In assessing circumstantial evidence, the Court follows the reasoning proposed by the Supreme Court in Reference Re:Truscott, (SCC), 1967 SCR 309 at page 384: “[…] The circumstantial evidence case is built piece by piece until the final evidentiary structure completely entraps the prisoner in asituation from which he cannot escape.

There may be missing from that structure a piece here and there and certain imperfection may bediscernible, but the entrapping mesh taken as a whole must be continuous and consistent. The law does not require that the guilt of anaccused be established to a demonstration but is satisfied when the evidence presented to the jury points conclusively to the accused asthe perpetrator of the crime and excludes any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The rules of evidence apply with equal force to proofby circumstantial evidence as to proof by direct evidence.

The evidence in both instances must be equally credible, admissible andrelevant.” [160] Justice David Watt explains the concept of circumstantial evidence as follows[35]:

“Circumstantial evidence is any item of evidence, testimonial or real, other than the testimony of an eyewitness to the material fact. It isany fact from the existence of which the trier of fact may infer the existence of a fact in issue. It is for the trial judge to determinewhether circumstantial evidence is relevant. Where evidence is circumstantial, it is critical to distinguish between inference and speculation. An inference is a deduction of fact thatmay logically and reasonably be drawn from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the proceedings.

There canbe no inference without objective facts from which to infer the facts that a party seeks to establish. If there are no positive proven factsfrom which an inference may be drawn, there can be no inference, only impermissible speculation and conjecture.” [161] Once the circumstantial evidence is admitted, it is up to the trier of fact to determine the weight attributable to it as well as theinferences that can be drawn from it.

The drawing of an inference is itself an exercise in fact finding.[36] [162] When dealing with circumstantial evidence, inferences that are consistent with the innocence of the accused do not have toarise from proven facts.

If reasonable inferences other than guilt can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence, this means that theCrown has not satisfied its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.[37] [163] The meaning of “reasonable inferences other than guilt” refers to “other plausible theories” and “other reasonable possibilities”that are consistent with the innocence of the accused, and based on logic and experience applied to the evidence or the absence ofevidence, not on speculation.[38] [164] Drawing the line between “plausible theory” and “speculation” is difficult.

In doing so, the Court must evaluate whether thecircumstantial evidence, viewed logically and in light of human experience, is reasonably capable of supporting an inference other thanthat the accused is guilty.[39] THE CONSPIRACY [165] In R. v.

J.F.[40], the Supreme Court discusses, as follows, the applicable principles pertaining to conspiracy accusations wherethe evidence is circumstantial: [52] In my view, where a person, with knowledge of a conspiracy (which by definition includes knowledge of the unlawful objectsought to be attained), does (or omits to do) something for the purpose of furthering the unlawful object, with the knowledge and consentof one or more of the existing conspirators, this provides powerful circumstantial evidence from which membership in the conspiracy canbe inferred.

To be precise, it would be evidence of an agreement, whether tacit or express, that the unlawful object should be achieved.Ultimately, that issue is one for the trier of fact, who must decide whether any inference other than agreement can reasonably be drawnon the evidence. But, as I will explain, the case at hand illustrates how a constellation of such facts can make a finding of membership avirtual certainty. [53] In so concluding, I note that conspiracies are often proved by way of circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of anagreement tends to be a rarity.

However, it is commonplace that membership in a conspiracy may be inferred from evidence of conductthat assists the unlawful object. Justice Rinfret made this basic point in Paradis v. The King, (SCC), [1934] S.C.R. 165,some eight decades ago: Conspiracy, like all other crimes, may be established by inference from the conduct of the parties.

No doubt the agreement between themis the gist of the offence, but only in very rare cases will it be possible to prove it by direct evidence. [p. 168] [54] Furthermore, it is not necessary that all members of a conspiracy play, or intend to play, equal roles in the ultimatecommission of the unlawful object. Indeed, members in a conspiracy need not personally commit, or intend to commit, the offence whicheach has agreed should be committed: R. v. Genser (1986), (MB CA), 39 Man.

R. (2d) 203 (C.A.), aff’d (SCC), [1987] 2 S.C.R. 685. [2] Any degree of assistance in the furtherance of the unlawful object can lead to a finding of membership as long as agreement to acommon plan can be inferred and the requisite mental state has been established. The law of conspiracy and the three-tiered Carter[41] approach [166] The first step set out in Carter[42] is to determine the existence of a conspiracy.

This is done without taking into account theparties involved.[43] The Court must evaluate if the prosecution established the existence of an agreement between the members of theconspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt for the purpose of carrying out an illegal act. [167] At this stage, all of the elements purported by the evidence are taken into account regardless of whether or not they areadmissible against the accused. [168] The second step set out in Carter[44] pertains to the probable participation of the accused in the conspiracy. [169] At this juncture, the Court must evaluate the evidence that is directly admissible against the accused.

As a result, the principledexception to hearsay rule as it relates to co-conspirators does not apply. The prosecution has the burden of demonstrating the accused’sparticipation on a balance of probabilities. [170] Both direct and circumstantial evidence are admissible to prove probable membership in the conspiracy, but only if theevidence directly involves the accused through his own acts and declarations viewed against the background or context of the otherevidence.[45]

[ 171 ] As for the third step, the Court must determine if the prosecution established the participation of the accused in the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt. [ 172 ] In practical terms, the Court needs to make a determination regarding the guilt of the accused. At this final stage, the evidence directly admissible against the accused as well as hearsay evidence as it relates to the principled exception to hearsay rule regarding co- conspirators is considered. The latter pertains to facts, gestures and words uttered by the co-conspirators in the pursuit of the common goal in furtherance of the conspiracy.

The act or declaration of the co-conspirator must be made while the common venture is still ongoing and must be in furtherance of the common design. [ 173 ] Furthermore, the accused’s own acts and declarations done or made after the conspiracy has terminated may constitute proof of that accused’s membership in the conspiracy, both at the second and third stages. [46] The application of the steps set out in Carter [47] [ 174 ] The first step: has the existence of a conspiracy to traffic cocaine and crystal meth been established beyond a reasonable doubt? [ 175 ] The Court answers in the affirmative for the following reasons: • Guérette had been under surveillance for a long period before his arrest on November 13 th , 2013; • On the day of his arrest, he exited his residence and was seen by police as he executed several counter-surveillance techniques; • He entered Desrosiers’ vehicle, a white Camry, and they proceeded to the parking lot of the Ikea together.

Once there, they parked next to the Kia Optima and proceeded to remove 6 bags from the trunk which were then transferred into the Camry. The Court infers from the testimony of Detective Sergeant Sylvestre that although he did not see the first 2 bags being transferred from Guérette to the Camry, the description of the transfer given by Sylvestre and the fact that Guérette was carrying very heavy objects in each hand leads to the conclusion that he was carrying 2 heavy bags; • They left the parking lot of the Ikea and the Camry was next seen parked across 3737 St-Jacques Street with no one aboard.

Desrosiers was seen standing in a bicycle path close to the parking area and Guérette was seen by a surveillance officer exiting 749 Agnès Street with Boumali. They headed to Desrosiers’ location on foot; • When they reached Desrosiers, the three entered the Camry and headed to Irène Street. Desrosiers parked the car and Guérette and Boumali walked back to the Agnès Street address, and each of them carried 2 heavy sports bags on their shoulders.

Desrosiers waited in the driver’s seat for 10 minutes and then headed back to the parking lot facing 3737 St-Jacques; • Guérette and Boumali entered the Agnès Street address with the bags. A few minutes later, Guérette exited on foot with a sports bag on his shoulder that he deposited in Desrosiers’ trunk. Desrosiers drove away and was intercepted by police. His vehicle was searched, and the police found 10 kg of cocaine; • Meanwhile, Guérette returned to the stash on Agnès Street. He exited with a khaki backpack, and a sports bag that he put in the trunk of a taxi.

He departed in the taxi, the police intercepted the vehicle, arrested him and seized 30 kg of cocaine; • Michel Bouchard was seen a little while later entering the drug stash and exiting with four sports bags that he put in his vehicle. He was arrested before departing, and the sports bags were seized.

They contained 54kg of cocaine and 15kg of crystal meth. [ 176 ] Given these facts, the Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of a conspiracy to traffic cocaine and crystal meth on November 13 th , 2013. [ 177 ] The second step: has the probable participation of the accused in the conspiracy been established? [ 178 ] The Court answers in the affirmative for the following reasons: • The evidence showed that the accused and Lacoursière drove to the United States on November 12 th , 2013.

The accused crossed the US border at 11:07 am. [48] Lacoursière crossed at 11:18 am [49] in a white Kia Optima bearing license plate number […V]; • They returned to Canada on November 13 th , 2013 in separate vehicles. Lacoursière drove a white Kia Optima and the accused drove a black Dodge Charger; • The accused received a telephone call from Lacoursière at 9:34:38 am that lasted over 4 minutes [50] ; • Lacoursière passed the border first and was authorized to enter Canada in a delay of about 15 seconds. [51] The accused was right behind her and passed through the same gate.

His stop at the gate lasted approximately three minutes, and he gave the border agent a coffee. [52] The border agent was Stephanie McLelland. As per the testimony of Laura Smith, border agents were not allowed to accept anything from travelers attending their gates; • When Lacoursière crossed the border back into Canada at 9:44:42 [53] , she was on the telephone with the accused [54] as of 9:40 am for a period of 24 minutes and 28 seconds [55] ;

• The accused was also sending text messages to border agent McLelland during the same period. [56] In fact, he sent McLelland four text messages right before arriving at her gate. For clarity purposes, the Court reproduces the segments of the accused’s text messages to the border agent: 1. 9:35:12 am: “Kids are ready live?”; 2. 9:35:39 am: “Love”; 3. 9:40:04 am: “?”; 4. 9:41:28 am: “Babe”; • McLelland responded to his 9:41:28 am text message at 9:42:31 am; • Lacoursière called the accused at 10:15 am. The telephone call lasted 26 minutes; • Lacoursière drove straight to the Ikea parking lot from the Border.

Her vehicle did not move from approximately 10:40 am to 12:27 pm; • There was no telephone communication between the accused and Lacoursière during that period; • The accused’s black Dodge Charger was seen at approximately 12:23 pm in the parking lot of the Ikea parked diagonally with the motor running which made it easy for the driver to observe who was coming into the parking lot.

The Charger was described as having a push bar; • The Charger was then seen heading towards the south side of the Ikea building circling around the Toyota Camry of Desrosiers and Guérette around the same time that they were transferring the bags from the Kia Optima to their vehicle. Lacoursière was not in the Kia at this time; • The Charger then stopped, and a woman unknown to police but later identified as Lacoursière appeared, and was then seen walking towards the Kia. Given police officer Potvin’s observations, it is reasonable to infer that she exited the Charger and went into the Kia.

This corroborates Lacoursière’s version to the effect that she was in the vehicle with the accused at that time; • Desrosiers and Guérette got into the white Camry. They left the parking lot where they were followed by Lacoursière in the Kia, and the accused in the Dodge Charger. When the 3 vehicles left the parking lot, they headed into different directions; • The accused called Lacoursière at 12:27 pm. The call lasted 64 seconds.

This was the exact time when the surveillance team saw her depart the Ikea parking lot; • He called her again at 12:40 pm and the call lasted 66 seconds; • Lacoursière went from the Ikea parking lot to the accused’s home at 154 Beauchemin in Ile Bizard. She entered the residence and exited a few moments later with a dog; • Desrosiers drove to an area close to the drug stash with Guérette. The bags were removed from the vehicle and brought to the stash temporarily. The bags were then removed from the stash.

Desrosiers and Guérette were arrested approximately one hour after leaving the Ikea parking lot while they were in possession of several kilograms of cocaine. [ 179 ] Given these facts, the Court is satisfied on a balance of probabilities of the accused’s participation in the conspiracy to traffic cocaine and crystal meth. [ 180 ] The third step: has the accused’s participation in the conspiracy been established beyond a reasonable doubt? [ 181 ] The Court answers in the affirmative for the following reasons: • The evidence showed that the accused and Lacoursière drove to the United States on November 12 th , 2013.

The accused crossed the US border at 11:07 am. [57] Lacoursière crossed at 11:18 am [58] in a white Kia Optima bearing license plate number [...V]; • They returned to Canada on November 13 th , 2013 in separate vehicles. Lacoursière drove a white Kia Optima, and the accused drove a black Dodge Charger; • The accused received a telephone call from Lacoursière at 9:34:38 am that lasted over 4 minutes [59] ; • Lacoursière passed the border first and was authorized to enter Canada in a delay of about 15 seconds. [60] The accused was right behind her and passed through the same gate.

His stop at the gate lasted approximately three minutes, and he gave the border agent a coffee. [61] The border agent was Stephanie McLelland.

As per the testimony of Laura Smith, border agents were not allowed to accept anything from travelers attending their gates; • When Lacoursière crossed the border back into Canada at 9:44:42 am [62] , she was on the telephone with the accused [63] as of 9:40 am for a period of 24 minutes and 28 seconds [64] ; • The accused was also sending text messages to border agent McLelland during the same period. [65] In fact, he sent McLelland four text messages right before arriving at her gate. For clarity purposes, the Court reproduces the segments of the accused’s text messages to the border agent:

1. 9:35:12 am: “Kids are ready live?”; 2. 9:35:39 am: “Love”; 3. 9:40:04 am: “?”; 4. 9:41:28 am: “Babe”; • At 9:42:31 am, McLelland responded to his text messages to her by saying: Yes babe; • Lacousière crossed her gate less than 2 minutes later; • Lacoursière called the accused at 10:15 am. The telephone call lasted 26 minutes; • Lacoursière drove straight to the Ikea parking lot from the border.

Her vehicle did not move from approximately 10:40 am to 12:27 pm; • There was no telephone communication between the accused and Lacoursière during that period; • Between 11:31:35 am and 11:49:55 am, the accused and McLelland exchanged the following text messages: 1. 11:31:35 am (McLelland to the accused): I’m home and going to bed; 2. 11:34:29 am (the accused to McLelland): Shit. U feeling so bad???; 3. 11:36:22 am (McLelland to the accused): Fever. I have chills. I’m taking a hot bath right now and I’m shivering; 4. 11:39:08 am (the accused to McLelland): Jeez.

Take meds pls; 5. 11:45:54 am (McLelland to the accused): I will. Promise. I only went in today so that you could take the kids. If I would’ve stayed home, some probably would’ve wanted to stay with me. Thank you :-); 6. 11:49:55 am (the accused to McLelland): Thanks you love. • Laura Smith confirmed that McLelland left her post at 11am due to illness; • The accused’s black Dodge Charger was seen at approximately 12:23 pm in the parking lot of the Ikea parked diagonally with the motor running which made it easy for the driver to observe who was coming into the parking lot.

The Charger was described as having a push bar; • The Charger was then seen heading towards the south side of the Ikea building circling around the Toyota Camry of Desrosiers and Guérette around the same time that they were transferring the bags from the Kia Optima to their vehicle. Lacoursière was not in the Kia at this time; • The Charger then stopped, and a woman unknown to police but later identified as Lacoursière appeared, and is then seen walking towards the Kia. Given police officer Potvin’s observations, it is reasonable to infer that she exited the Charger and went into the Kia.

This corroborates Lacoursière’s version to the effect that she was in the vehicle with the accused at that time; • Desrosiers and Guérette got into the white Camry. They left the parking lot where they were followed by Lacoursière in the Kia, and the accused in the Dodge Charger. When the 3 vehicles left the parking lot, they headed into different directions; • The accused called Lacoursière at 12:27 pm. The call lasted 64 seconds.

This is the exact time when the surveillance team saw her depart the Ikea parking lot; • He called her again at 12:40 pm and the call lasted 66 seconds; • Lacoursière went from the Ikea parking lot to the accused’s home at 154 Beauchemin in Ile Bizard. She entered the residence and exited a few moments later with a dog; • Desrosiers drove to an area close to the drug stash with Guérette. The bags were removed from the vehicle and brought to the stash temporarily. The bags were then removed from the stash.

Desrosiers and Guérette were arrested approximately one hour after leaving the Ikea parking lot while they were in possession of several kilograms of cocaine; • Narcotics accounting documents were seized from Desrosiers and Bouchard at the time of their arrest [66] and a front list was seized from the stash [67] with various names of clients and amounts indicated next to the names. One of the names that was mentioned repeatedly with amounts next to it is Sunny.

The Court infers that the Sunny referred to in the front list is the accused because this nickname comes up in the material evidence, through the testimony of Lacoursière, and through the testimony of the double agent as well as the text message that she exchanged with him; • On November 13 th , 2013, Stephanie McLelland, via her cellular number [...58], was in contact with the accused on his cellular number, [...64] on 41 occasions between 7:13 am and 5:29 pm; • The accused communicated with Lacoursière approximately 10 times on that day between 9:34 am and 8:02 pm. [68] [ 182 ] The Court is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused conspired to traffic cocaine and crystal meth on November

13 th , 2013.

The importation, the possession for the purpose of trafficking and the trafficking [ 183 ] The weighing of evidence against an accused that is entirely circumstantial is a delicate exercise of connecting the dots. [ 184 ] To this effect, it is recognized that knowledge of possession can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by direct or circumstantial evidence [69] based on the cumulative effect of all of the evidence, considered together. [70] [ 185 ] In the present matter, although the accused did not have personal possession of the narcotics, the evidence establishes that he was in joint possession of them with Lacoursière.

All of the circumstantial evidence discussed previously, and viewed as a whole, points to the fact that the accused had knowledge, consent, and control over the drugs. [71] [ 186 ] With respect to the Accused’s presence in the parking lot of the Ikea during the time that the bags were being transferred from Lacoursière’s vehicle to the Toyota Camry by Guérette and Desrosiers, the defence contends that his mere presence at the scene is not sufficient to prove his participation in the commission of the alleged offences. [ 187 ] It is true that mere presence at the scene is not sufficient to support a conviction.

However, in order to arrive at this conclusion, the mere presence must be consistent with innocence. [72] [ 188 ] This is not the case in the present matter.

Reflecting on the whole of the evidence, the Court concludes that the accused’s presence was consistent only with his culpable involvement in the infractions [73] namely because the evidence of the prosecution stands alone. [74] [ 189 ] There are no other facts before the Court supporting any other reason for the accused’s presence in that particular area of the parking lot of the Ikea at the exact moment that Guérette and Desrosiers were transferring the bags from the Kia to the Camry.

Therefore, to focus on any other reason would be to engage in speculation and conjecture. [ 190 ] Furthermore, the Court does not adhere to the defence’s contention that Lacoursière was the mastermind behind the offences. One of the principle reasons for this is the fact that the accused, and not Lacoursière, had the relationship with border agent McLelland. The accused, and not Lacoursière, communicated with McLelland only minutes before Lacoursière passed her gate. [ 191 ] The accused, and not Lacoursière, gave McLelland a coffee when he passed through her gate.

The accused, and not Lacoursière, exchanged text messages with McLelland in the late morning once they passed the border. [ 192 ] In addition, the deleted text messages between the accused and Lacoursière of August 2013 [75] clearly show that the accused organized trips to the United States and requested Lacoursière’s participation by paying her large sums of money as she stated in her testimony. [ 193 ] The evidence must be viewed “through the lens of judicial experience”, applying “a good dose of common sense”. [76] [ 194 ] The Court deems that the only rational conclusion is that the accused was the one who orchestrated and participated in the importation of the narcotics by using Lacoursière as the drug mule while he closely supervised.

Moreover, McLelland served as a tool for the accused in order to annihilate any risk associated with transporting the narcotics over the border. [ 195 ] He then ensured that Guérette and Desrosiers picked up the drugs from the Ikea parking lot for the purpose of redistribution. [ 196 ] The Court is satisfied that the evidence, as a whole, establishes the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt with respect to all of the charges. CONCLUSION [ 197 ] The Court DECLARES him guilty on counts 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7.

Given the Kienapple principle which prohibits double punishment for the same basic act, a conditional stay of proceedings is ordered on counts 1 and 2. __________________________________ FLAVIA K. LONGO, J.C.Q.

Me Dannie Leblanc Me Éric Poudrier DPCP Prosecutrix Me Debora De Thomasis Avocats Laval S.N. Accused Hearing dates: November 27, 28, 29 2017, December 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 14 2017 January 25, 26, 29, 2018, February 26, 27 and 28 2018