R. v. Chaisson, 2022 NSSC 135

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: R. v. Chaisson , 2022 NSSC 135 Date: 20220513 Docket: SAT No. 503668 Registry: Antigonish Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Gabriel George Chaisson VERDICT Judge: The Honourable Justice Scott C. Norton Heard: March 21and 28, 2022, in Antigonish, Nova Scotia Decision: May 13, 2022 Counsel: Wayne J. MacMillan, for the Crown Johnathan Hughes, for the Accused NOTE: In reducing to writing the oral decision rendered in this matter, editing has taken place to include omitted citations and quotes from secondary sources and to make changes to format or to grammar for readability.

No changes have been made to the substantive reasons for decision. By the Court (Orally): Introduction [ 1 ] Mr. Chaisson is charged with one count of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act , SC 1996, c.19 (“ CDSA ”) on October 9, 2020 at or near Goshen Nova Scotia and four counts of breach of a condition of a release order contrary to s. 145(5) (

a) of the Criminal Code . [ 2 ] On October 9, 2020, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) conducted a search of Mr. Chaisson’s house at 21560 Hwy 316, Goshen, Nova Scotia pursuant to a search warrant issued under s. 487.1 of the Criminal Code , on the basis that they had reasonable grounds to believe and did believe there would be a hand gun, ammunition, firearm or other prohibited devices at that residence . I previously ruled that this search was legally authorized ( 2021 NSSC 123 ). [ 3 ] While members of the RCMP were searching the residence they found items that suggested that Mr.

Chaisson was conducting business in trafficking a controlled substance. This led to an application for and the granting of a warrant to search pursuant to s. 11 of the CDSA (“CDSA ITO”). The legality of that warrant and search was not challenged. [ 4 ] At the trial, counsel advised the Court that continuity of exhibits was not an issue. [ 5 ] At the time of closing argument, Mr. Hughes advised that Mr. Chaisson had instructed him to request that I review a portion of the recording of the June 3, 2021 hearing of his motion for a stay for abuse of process. That motion was dismissed by decision dated June 9, 2021.

Mr. Hughes was not retained by Mr. Chaisson at that time. He stated that Mr. Chaisson believed that, at the conclusion of the testimony of Cst. Jessome and Cst. Donaldson at the motion hearing, I expressed concern with the reliability of their evidence. I directed Mr. Hughes to provide me with correspondence as soon as possible, noting the date and time references to the parts of the recording Mr. Chaisson wanted me to review. [ 6 ] I have listened to the recording for June 3, 2021 commencing at 13:41.21 as requested by Mr. Chaisson.

Both the recording and my decision on the motion clearly show that I did not express concern over the reliability of the evidence of Cst. Jessome or Cst. Donaldson.

The Crown Evidence Sabrina Rossignol [ 7 ] Cst. Sabrina Rossignol is a member of the RCMP. She participated in the search and was assigned to be the exhibit officer. A package of 28 photographs was introduced in evidence. She took the photographs, except photographs taken in the attic (photographs 11-16 of the package). She identified photographs of plastic bags, digital scales, cell phones, guns and a 12 inch knife that were seized. She identified the rooms shown in the photographs taken by her. [ 8 ] She was passed three plastic bags containing substances from an officer in the attic.

These were marked Police Exhibit (“PE”) 14, 15 and 16, and were entered as Court exhibits 2B, 3A and 4, respectively. [ 9 ] Exhibit 5A (PE 29) was identified as a digital scale seized from a drawer in the dresser of the master bedroom and shown in photographs 27 and 28. [ 10 ] Exhibit 6A (PE 28) is a plastic bag seized from the dresser drawer in the master bedroom shown in photographs 27 and 28. [ 11 ] The photographs showed an attic hatch in a bedroom. She testified there was a second attic hatch in the upstairs hallway above a VLT machine on the floor, shown in one of the photographs.

She estimated the distance between the attic hatches to be the distance of the Antigonish Supreme Court room from front to back. [ 12 ] In cross-examination she agreed that she had also taken a photograph of a driver’s license for a Natasha McNeil that was on the dresser in the master bedroom. She did not prepare any samples of the items seized for testing by a laboratory. She believes the samples were prepared by John Melanson. She did not weigh any substances and does not recall if she was present when they were weighed. Chris Brownoff [ 13 ] Cst.

Chris Brownoff is a member of the RCMP and was asked to assist with the execution of the search warrant on October 9, 2020. He identified a photograph of Mr. Chaisson’s home as the location where the search was conducted. He said that the door was locked and no one responded to their knocking and announcement that it was the police. The door was rammed open by another officer and Cst. Brownoff followed Cpl. Melanson into the house. [ 14 ] Cst. Brownoff went into the attic of the house through a hatch in the upstairs hall.

He gained access by standing on what he called a “juke box” that was in the hall and pulling himself up through the hatch. He went through the attic and exited through the hatch that was in the ceiling of a bedroom. There was no one else in the attic when he was there. The attic had insulation between the rafters and was otherwise unfinished. There was no apparent storage or usage of the attic. He later went back up into the attic via use of a step ladder from the bedroom hatch. [ 15 ] Cst. Brownoff identified photo 11 as showing the general look of the attic.

Photo 12 showed a pair of underwear and next to them two white chunks which he believed to be cocaine. Those chunks were located approximately half-way between the two access hatches. Photo 13 is a close up of one of the white chunks. Photo 14 is a close up of the white chunk next to the underwear. Photo 15 is of a plastic bag containing white pieces of a material found near the chimney in the attic.

Photo 16 is of a white chunk found near the hatch above a bedroom. [ 16 ] He identified the contents of Court exhibits 2B, 3A and 4 as similar to the material he observed in the attic. [ 17 ] In cross-examination Cst. Brownall testified that the items found in the attic were not within arms reach of either hatch. When he first entered the house he encountered a male on the first floor that he identified as Colin Taylor. He was arrested on an outstanding bench warrant. John Donaldson [ 18 ] Cst. John Donaldson is a member of the RCMP.

He was involved in the search on October 9, 2020 and wrote the Information to Obtain documents to obtain the search warrant. He identified Mr. Chaisson in the courtroom. When he arrived at the house to participate in the search, he took up a position at the rear of the house in case anyone tried to leave through the back doors. While standing there he observed someone open the drapes to the window of the room on the second floor on the left side of the house as he was looking at it. [ 19 ] He identified Exhibit 2B as PE 14, a chunk of white material that was seized from the attic. It was weighed to be 31 grams.

A sample of this material was obtained (Exhibit 2D) and sent to the Health Canada lab for analysis. Exhibit 2 C is the Certificate of Analysis determining that the sample contained a controlled substance within the meaning of the CDSA

Schedule 1 2. (2) cocaine (benzoylmethylecgonine). [ 20 ] He identified Exhibit 3A as PE 15 being a chunk of white material that was seized from the attic. It was weighed to be 102 grams. A sample (Exhibit 3C) was sent to the lab for analysis and the Certificate of Analysis (Exhibit 3B) determined the sample to contain cocaine. [ 21 ] He identified Exhibit 4, PE 16, as being a bag of a white material weighing 11 grams seized from the attic. A sample was not sent to the lab for analysis. [ 22 ] Exhibit 5A, PE 29, is a digital scale. It was sent to the lab for analysis. Exhibit 5B is the Certificate of Analysis that

determined that the scale contained an amount of cocaine. [ 23 ] Exhibit 6A, PE 28, is a Ziplock bag containing a white material that was weighed to be 12 grams. A sample (Exhibit 6C) was sent to the lab for analysis. The Certificate of Analysis (Exhibit 6B) determined that the sample contained cocaine. [ 24 ] In cross examination Cst. Donaldson confirmed that $400 in cash was seized from Mr. Chaisson at the detachment. He knew that Colin Taylor might be at the residence and that there was an outstanding warrant for his arrest. Mr. Taylor was not charged in relation to the search.

He was aware that identification cards were found on the dresser for Natasha Hendsbee and Natasha McNeil. He cannot say if Mr. Chaisson’s identification was found in the dresser. [ 25 ] He agreed the target of the search was firearms. None of the firearms that the RCMP had been given information about were found. Three pellet guns were found in the house. [ 26 ] He was aware that there had been a previous search of that property and that a Daniel Walsh had been charged out of that search. [ 27 ] Photograph 15 shows a vacuum-seal bag. It is not the same bag as Exhibit 2A.

He cannot say where in the attic Exhibit 2A was found. This bag had no identifiable finger prints on it. The phones seized did not disclose any relevant evidence. There was also a search conducted of Mr. Chaisson’s safety deposit box that yielded no relevant evidence. James Jessome [ 28 ] Cpl. James Jessome is a member of the RCMP and participated in the search on October 9, 2020. He was the file supervisor and ran the pre-search briefing. When the officers arrived at the house at 21560 Hwy 316, Goshen, they knocked and announced themselves as police with a search warrant.

When the door was not opened they used a ram to force the door open. The door was barricaded with 2x6 boards. He was the first officer to enter the house. [ 29 ] He observed a male on his left and continued immediately up the stairs in front of him to the second floor. When he reached the top of the stairs he could hear noise in the attic to his left. He went to the end of the hallway on the left. There is bedroom there. He then went back to the hall located to the right of the top of the stairs. It sounded like a wire being rattled in the attic.

He observed a hatch open to the attic above a VLT machine on the floor in the hall, depicted in photo 7. Below the hatch he saw a broken picture frame on the floor. He yelled for whoever was in the attic to present themselves. Mr. Chaisson presented himself and he assisted Mr. Chaisson to come down from the attic via the hatch in the hall. Cst. Ramagli took Mr. Chaisson into custody. Cst. Jessome went up into the attic via that hatch to confirm that there was no one else there, found no one, then came back down via the same hatch.

That was his only trip into the attic. [ 30 ] He had five or six encounters with Mr. Chaisson at this residence since 2012. [ 31 ] He identified photograph 8 as depicting Mr. Chaisson’s bedroom which is on the right side of the hall in which the VLT machine is depicted in photo 7. Photograph 10 depicts a different hatch from the one that Mr.

Chaisson came down through and he went up and down through. [ 32 ] He testified that when he came to the top of the stairs and heard a noise to his left, it would have been in the area of the window shown in photo 11. [ 33 ] In cross-examination, he testified that photograph 11 is taken from the hallway hatch and that the photo depicts the bedroom hatch in the distance closer to the window. There are no floor boards in the attic. [ 34 ] He was present at the search of this house in February 2020. Daniel Walsh was arrested at that time and charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He was arrested in a bedroom at the other end of the hall from Mr. Chaisson’s bedroom. [ 35 ] He identified photo 9 and photo 10 as showing the TV and ceiling fan depicted in the photos of the room where Mr. Walsh was arrested. [ 36 ] He was aware that Natasha Hendsbee or McNeil was Mr. Chaisson’s girlfriend at some point in time. David Lane [ 37 ] Cpl. David Lane of the RCMP was called as an expert witness by the Crown.

He was proposed to be qualified as an expert witness capable of giving opinion evidence in the following areas: The unlawful possession for the purpose of trafficking of cocaine Methods used to avoid police detection Trafficking methods Drug trafficking trends Drug distribution chains Drug hierarchy Drug pricing

Drug houses Stash houses [ 38 ] Mr. Chaisson did not consent to Cpl. Lane’s qualifications. A voir dire was held. Cpl. Lane has been qualified over 70 times in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Ontario, no less than 40 times in respect of the cocaine trade. He has testified for both the Crown and Defence. The principle argument made by Mr. Chaisson was that Cpl. Lane, as an employee of the RCMP, should not be qualified as he may exhibit unintentional bias and that Crown counsel did not ask him if he was unbiased.

However, in his testimony on the voir dire , and as an experienced expert witness, he was clearly aware of his obligation to the court to be unbiased. He stated that he understood he was not to opine on the ultimate issue before the Court but to assist the Court in putting the exhibits into context. He testified that his understanding was that his role as an expert is to be unbiased and to assist the trier of fact. I was satisfied that in providing the court with his expertise, it was unlikely that he would exhibit unintentional bias. [ 39 ] At the conclusion of the voir dire , I found that Cpl.

Lane was qualified to give the opinion evidence as proposed by the Crown on the tests defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in White Burgess Langille Inman v. Abbott and Haliburton Co., 2015 SCC 23 and R. v. Mohan, 1994 SCC 80 . In keeping with my gatekeeping responsibility, while he gave his testimony I was alert for any sign of bias in his evidence and did not observe any. No objection was made during his testimony on this basis. [ 40 ] Cpl. Lane testified that upon receipt of the file he first reviewed the exhibit sheet of what was seized.

In his opinion, the items seized were consistent with trafficking in the drug trade. He had not considered the fact that the door was barricaded but, having heard it in court, he can say that it is consistent with someone involved in the drug trade as it is protection against the police conducting a search (allowing time to dispose of the drugs) or against someone seeking to rob the drug trafficker – known as a “drug rip”. [ 41 ] The two exhibits of substances certified by the lab to contain cocaine in the amounts of 102 grams (3A) and 31 grams (2B) are, in his opinion, not amounts consistent with personal use.

End level purchases for personal use are usually in the one or two gram range. The street value of cocaine is $100 per gram, usually sold in a small one inch by one inch plastic bag, known as a “dime bag”. It is also sold at the high end of personal use as an “eight ball” which is the street language for one eighth of an ounce. One ounce equals 28 grams. So an “eight ball” equals 3.5 grams. That price is consistent across Nova Scotia. [ 42 ] In his opinion, the volume of product seized is consistent with a mid-level or street level trafficker.

The presence of small digital scales and bulk number of small plastic bags is more consistent with street level trafficking. [ 43 ] In cross-examination Cpl. Lane testified that the presence of replica hand guns is consistent with a trafficker but the long-barrel pellet guns found under a bed would not be indicia of trafficking. [ 44 ] He confirmed that the small size of scale and dime baggies were consistent with street level trafficking. There is no playbook for traffickers as to whether they keep their drugs, scales and baggies kept in different parts of the house.

It is dependent on the sophistication of the trafficker. He is not aware of the level of sophistication in this case. [ 45 ] Cpl. Lane testified that the further the drug gets from the brick in which it is delivered from the manufacturer, the looser that the product becomes in texture. The powder in Exhibit 6A is consistent with it being for end use.

However, the amount, being 12 grams, is greater than would reasonably be expected for personal use, but not impossible. [ 46 ] Although the baggies and small scale are more consistent with street trafficking, the volume of product seized is more consistent with mid-level trafficking. [ 47 ] The rolled up $5 bill shown in photographs 27 and 28 is consistent with the making of a straw for snorting for personal use. [ 48 ] The product in Exhibits 2B and 3A is of a different consistency than the contents of Exhibit 6A. The Defence Evidence Kara Lee Walsh [ 49 ] Ms.

Walsh is an industrial painter presently living in Ontario. She testified via video. She is 41 years old. She was in a relationship and lived with Mr. Chaisson at 21560 Hwy 316 in Goshen from March 2019 to December 2019 and after that time visited once or twice a month. [ 50 ] She identified others who lived at this address including her nephew Daniel Walsh from February 2019 to February 2020, Billy Sullivan, and Natasha McNeil (before her). She observed Daniel Walsh trafficking drugs and storing drugs at both her house and at Mr. Chaisson’s.

She further clarified that while he had removed wall paneling and attic insulation at her house she did not know if he had done anything similar anywhere else. [ 51 ] In cross-examination she confirmed that Mr. Chaisson occupied the property at 21560 Hwy 316 in 2019 and 2020. She understood he owned that house the entire time. He occupied a bedroom located on the upper level of the house on the right side of the hall to the right at the top of the stairs. Natasha McNeil [ 52 ] Ms. McNeil requested that she give her evidence with the use of a screen pursuant to

section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code . Following a voir dire , I found that due to anxiety for which she was is prescribed medication, I would permit her to testify from behind a screen in order to facilitate a full and candid account of her evidence.

[53] Ms. McNeil testified that she was familiar with the premises at 61250 Hwy 316, Goshen, Nova Scotia, being the residence ofMr. Chaisson. She lived with him at those premises for a year in 2016. They shared a bedroom. She was aware that there had beenmore than one home invasion prior to her living there. She testified that the reinforcements to the door were made after she moved out. She also testified that the barricades on the door pre-existed the home invasions. She was not at the premises in 2017.

She was notfamiliar with a person by the name of Colin Taylor living at the premises in October 2020. [54] After Mr. Chaisson was taken into custody in October 2020 she went to the premises and located Mr. Chaisson’s wallet in apair of shorts. The wallet contained cash. She used the cash to pay bills at the request of Mr. Chaisson. She did not know anyone else tobe resident at the premises at that time. She did not know Colin Taylor being resident at the premises. She acknowledged she was arecreational user of cocaine. General Principles [55] It is not Mr.

Chaisson’s responsibility to demonstrate, establish, or prove his innocence or to explain away the allegations madeagainst him. He is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Crown bears this onus of proof beyond areasonable doubt throughout the trial and it never shifts. This burden requires the Crown to prove each element of each offence beyond areasonable doubt. [56] Credibility and reliability are separate but important considerations in the assessment of a witness’s evidence.

A trier of fact isentitled to believe none, part or all of a witness’s evidence. [57] Credibility addresses a witness’s veracity. Demeanor, standing alone, is not a good indicator of credibility. The trier shouldlook for inconsistencies within the testimony of the witness and inconsistencies between the testimony and past statements ordocuments. Whether the witness has an interest in the outcome must be considered, as well as whether the witness has a motive todeceive. Whether a witness had the ability to observe the factual matters of which they testify.

Does the testimony make sense from apractical and logical perspective having regard to the place and conditions existing? Did the witness appear evasive, hesitant, unsure orbiased in their testimony? Baker v. Aboud, 2017 NSSC 42 [58] Reliability addresses the accuracy of the witness’ testimony and engages consideration of the witness’ ability to accuratelyobserve, recall and recount the events in issue: R. v. C. (H.), 2018 ONCA 779 [59] I find that all of the witnesses who testified were both reliable and credible with the exception of Ms. McNeil. Her evidencewas given in a hesitant manner.

It was internally inconsistent. I do not believe that it would be safe to rely upon any of her testimony. [60] In order for a finding of guilt for the drug offence, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: the substance was acontrolled substance, namely cocaine; Mr. Chaisson was in possession of the substance; Mr. Chaisson knew the nature of the substance;and Mr. Chaisson possessed the substance for the purpose of trafficking. 1. The substance was a controlled substance, namely cocaine. The Certificates of Analysis, filed as Exhibits 2C, 3B, 5B and 6B, from the Health Canada Lab were not contested.

They each certifiedthat the sample tested contained cocaine. 2. Mr. Chaisson was in possession of the substance. [61]

Section 2 of the CDSA directs that possession means possession within the meaning of subsection 4(3) of the Criminal Code.Section 4(3) of the Code creates three ways a person can be found to be in possession: personal possession; constructive possession; andjoint possession. The formal language used is 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;and (

b) where one of two or more persons, with the knowledge and consent of the rest, has anything in his custody or possession, it shall bedeemed to be in the possession of each and all of them. [62] This is a case of constructive possession. That is, the Crown asserts that Mr. Chaisson knowingly had the drugs at the housefor his use or benefit. There is no direct evidence that Mr. Chaisson knew the drugs were in the house. [63] The principles of constructive possession were set out in R. v Pham, (ON CA), [2005] O.J.

No. 5127, aff’d2006 SCC 26, where the majority noted: 15 In order to constitute constructive possession, which is sometimes referred to as attributed possession, there must be knowledgewhich extends beyond mere quiescent knowledge and discloses some measure of control over the item to be possessed. See R. v.Caldwell (1972), 1972 ALTASCAD 33 , 7 C.C.C. (2d) 285 (Alta. C.A.); R. v. Escoffery (1996), (ON CA), 28O.R. (3d) 417 (Ont. C.A.) [hereinafter R. v. Grey]. 16 In order to constitute joint possession pursuant to section 4(3)(

b) of the Code there must be knowledge, consent, and a measure ofcontrol on the part of the person deemed to be in possession. See R. v. Terrence, (SCC), [1983] 1 S.C.R. 357 (S.C.C.); R.v. Williams (1998), (ON CA), 40 O.R. (3d) 301 (Ont. C.A.); R. v. Barreau (1991), (BC CA), 19

W.A.C. 290 (B.C. C.A.) and R. v. Chambers (1985), (ON CA), 20 C.C.C. (3d) 440 (Ont. C.A.). 17 The element of knowledge is dealt with by Watt J. in the case of R. v. Sparling, [1988] O.J. No. 107 (Ont. H.C.) at p. 6: There is no direct evidence of the applicant's knowledge of the presence of narcotics in the residence. It is not essential that there be suchevidence for as with any other issue of fact in a criminal proceeding, it may be established by circumstantial evidence.

In combination,the finding of narcotics in plain view in the common areas of the residence, the presence of a scale in a bedroom apparently occupied bythe applicant, and; the applicants apparent occupation of the premises may serve to found an inference of the requisite knowledge. The court of appeal decision in R. v. Sparling, [1988] O.J. No. 1877 (Ont. C.A.) upheld the above passage as being sufficient evidence toinfer knowledge. 18 The onus is on the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, all of the essential elements of the offence of possession.

This canbe accomplished by direct evidence or may be inferred from circumstantial evidence. In Chambers, supra at 448, Martin J.A. noted thatthe court may draw "appropriate inferences from evidence that a prohibited drug is found in a room under the control of an accused andwhere there is also evidence from which an inference may properly be drawn that the accused was aware of the presence of the drug." [Emphasis added] [64] This analysis has been adopted by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in R. v. Murphy, 2014 NSCA 91, and R. v. Power, 2017NSCA 85.

In Power, Justice Fichaud, writing for the court, said: 37 There are cases where knowledge and control has been inferred from the existence of drugs in a conspicuous location in theaccused's home. However, there is a vast difference in inferring knowledge and control where drugs are located in conspicuouscircumstances in a home where an accused lives or frequents, and bins found in dense brush 300 to 400 metres in the woods.

In my view,the appellant's ability to access the house and barn does not give rise to the conclusion that he must have known about, and exercisedcontrol over, the bins of marihuana in the woods. [65] In the present case, the drugs were found in the attic of the house and in the dresser drawer in Mr. Chaisson’s bedroom. Theevidence establishes that this was Mr. Chaisson’s house. He had encounters with the police at this location since 2012. Kara Lee Walshidentified the house as belonging to Mr. Chaisson. At the time of the search, Mr.

Chaisson was under a Release Order from the Courtdated March 24, 2020, signed by him, requiring him to reside at 21650 Hwy 316, Goshen, Nova Scotia. [66] There is no evidence that there was anyone else residing at the premises at the time of the search. [67] The largest amount of cocaine was found in the attic, a conspicuous location. The RCMP announced their presence and used aram to gain access through the barricaded front door. Shortly after gaining access they found Mr. Chaisson in the attic which could onlybe accessed by ceiling hatches.

There was no ladder present below either hatch, requiring an athletic act to access the attic. WhenRCMP Cpl. Jessome first arrived at the top of the stairs, he heard someone in the attic at the far end of the attic from the hallway hatchwhere Mr. Chaisson presented himself. This evidence, together with the bag of cocaine in the dresser drawer of Mr. Chaisson’sbedroom, and a small digital scale containing traces of cocaine, satisfy me that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.Chaisson had constructive possession of the cocaine seized. [68] The fact that identification for a former girlfriend, Ms.

McNeil, was found on the dresser, does not raise a reasonable doubt thatthe dresser, located in Mr. Chaisson’s bedroom, was not in Mr. Chaisson’s possession or control. 3. Mr. Chaisson knew the nature of the substance [69] I am satisfied by the evidence that Mr. Chaisson knew of the nature of the substance. To determine Mr. Chaisson’s state ofmind I have considered what he did or did not do; how he did or did not do it; and what he said or did not say about it. The cocaine wasconspicuously hidden in the attic of his house of which he had exclusive possession and control at the time of the seizure.

There wasalso cocaine found in his dresser drawer. He had digital weighing scales and small plastic bags, known as “dime bags” in which a singlegram of cocaine could be made available for sale. He had the doors barricaded. Cpl. Lane testified this was common among drugdealers and traffickers as it protected against raids by the police and attempted robberies. [70] His presence in the attic as the police enter the home is consistent with the evidence of Cpl.

Lane that traffickers often rush totry and conceal or destroy the drugs at the time of a police search. [71] As Justice Watt found in Sparling, there is no direct evidence of Mr. Chaisson’s knowledge of the presence of cocaine in theresidence. It is not essential that there be such evidence for, as with any other issue of fact in a criminal proceeding, it may be establishedby circumstantial evidence. I find that the totality of the evidence satisfies me that he had the requisite knowledge. 4. Mr. Chaisson possessed the substance for the purpose of trafficking [72] Cpl.

Lane was qualified as an expert witness and testified that having reviewed the list of exhibits seized, he formed theopinion that the amount of cocaine, the presence of digital scales, the presence of “dime bags”, and the barricading of the door are allconsistent with trafficking. He acknowledged that the volume of cocaine was more consistent with a mid-level dealer, while the scalesand “dime bags” were more consistent with street level trafficking. However, he testified that there is no playbook defining withprecision how an individual trafficker will operate.

I am satisfied that the Crown has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.Chaisson had the intent to sell or transfer the cocaine to others. [73] I find Mr. Chaisson guilty of the charge of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of theCDSA.

The Breach Charges [ 74 ] Mr. Chaisson is charged with four counts of breach of a condition of a release order contrary to s. 145(5) (

a) of the Criminal Code , specifically, being at large on a release order and failing, without lawful excuse, to comply with the following conditions: Keep the peace and be of good behaviour; Must not possess a weapon or ammunition; Must not possess a controlled substance as defined by the CDSA ; Must remain in your residence at all times with no visitors. [ 75 ] I am satisfied that the evidence has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Chaisson knowingly breached the conditions of keeping the peace and being of good behaviour and possessing a controlled substance.

With respect to possessing a weapon, I am not satisfied that the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the pellet guns or hunting knife found during the search met the definition of “weapon” in the Criminal Code and that charge is dismissed. With respect to the condition of remaining in his residence with no visitors, I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that anyone was at the residence for the purpose of visiting Mr. Chaisson and accordingly this charge is dismissed. Norton J.