Case Law Database

Drug offences

Offences

• Offering/ offering for sale/ sale/ brokerage
• Purchase/ possession

Substances Involved

• Cocaine

Trafficking in firearms

Offences

• Illicit trafficking

Trafficking details

• Unauthorized import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or transfer of firearms, their parts or components or ammunition

Item Types

• firearms

R v. L.

Fact Summary

The charges against the appellants arose out of an extensive police investigation labelled Project XXX into the Doomstown Crips (also known as the Doomztown Crips or Jamestown Crips). The Doomstown Crips was an alleged criminal gang operating in the Rexdale neighbourhood of the City of Toronto. The four appellants, S.L., S.R., R.C. and V.B. C., were alleged to be distributing drugs and firearms to the Doomstown Crips. They were not suspected of being gang members.  The appellant Alvarez was alleged to be a member of the Doomstown Crips. The Project XXX investigation began in November 2005. Lucas was the initial suspect. He was implicated by a gun smuggler from the United States, Earl Cooke, who identified S.L. as someone who had purchased 110 firearms from him between October 2002 and October 2003. By 2006, the police had only recovered 20 of the firearms. Nine of these recovered guns were linked, directly or indirectly, to the Doomstown Crips. The appellants S.R., R.C. and V.B. C. were targeted for investigation because of their association with S.L.. Police surveillance in January 2006 revealed S.L. leaving S.R.'s residence with a knapsack containing three pipe-shaped objects the police believed to be firearms. On February 13, 2006, police obtained a wiretap authorization under s. 186(1.1) of Part VI of the Criminal Code to intercept private communications of a large number of people including the appellants, S.L. and Alvarez. The authorization was issued by Echlin J. In support of the February 13, 2006 Part VI wiretap authorization, the police filed an Information to Obtain (“ITO”), sworn by Detective Vander Heyden, which consists of more than 1000 pages plus lengthy appendices. Included in the ITO was information that the police obtained from two confidential informants. On March 31, 2006, the initial Part VI authorization was extended in time and expanded in scope. In addition to the wiretap authorizations, the police also obtained three general warrants pursuant to s. 487.01 of the Criminal Code. The general warrants were issued on February 16 and 24, 2006 by Taylor J. and on March 31, 2006 as part of the Part VI authorization issued by Echlin J. The February 16 general warrant authorized covert entry into 20 residences and eight motor vehicles. Among other things, the officers were authorized to copy documents, photograph or seize weapons and controlled substances, examine or record data contained in cellular telephones and covertly retrieve keys. The February 16 warrant was used to search S.L.’s vehicle on March 21, 2006 and his residence on March 25. It was also used to search R.C.'s residence on March 22, during which police observed, but did not seize, a significant quantity of U.S. and Canadian cash. The February 24 general warrant authorized the police to enter a storage locker at a public storage site at 389 Paris Road in Brantford. The search of the locker, conducted on February 25, 2006, revealed that it contained guns, ammunition, drugs, and a box containing 1 kg of cocaine. The box had a label with R.C.'s home address on it. The March 31 general warrant was embedded in the wiretap authorization issued by Echlin J. It authorized the surreptitious entry of a large number of places and vehicles belonging to the appellants or persons associated with them. The March 31 warrant was used to search S.L.’s residence on April 29. The police also executed the general warrant on R.C.'s residence on April 8 and seized approximately $64,000 in cash, a money counter, and other items.  V.B.C.'s vehicle was searched without a warrant on May 16, 2006. During this search the police seized a laptop bag containing $17,000 in cash. Arrest and search warrants were executed on May 18, 2006 (the “take-down warrants”). The take-down warrants authorized the police to enter the premises of a large number of individuals, including the appellants, without knocking or giving notice to the occupants, in order to effect the arrests of the individuals named in the warrants and to search the premises. Pursuant to the take-down warrants, the police arrested 102 persons, including the five appellants, in the early morning hours during dynamic no-knock entries. During the search of R.C.'s residence, police found $20,000 in cash and marijuana. During the search of V.B.C.'s residence, the police found $6,195 cash in the possession of another male, a safe containing $2,000 in cash, a money counter, several cell phones, and a document believed to be a debt list. During the search of S.R.'s residence, police seized $3530 and US$450, a money counter, and numerous cell phones. S.R. also had $1,000 on his person when he was arrested. The search of Lucas’ residence revealed numerous cell phones, a money counter, and a hollowed-out book that had been seen to contain cash during a covert entry into his residence on March 25. S.L., S.R., R.C. and V.B. C. were charged with various firearms and/or drug-related offences on a 29-count indictment. Alvarez was charged together with six co-accused on a 126-count indictment.

Sentence Date:
2014-07-23

Cross-Cutting Issues

Liability

... for

• completed offence

... based on

• criminal intention

... as involves

• principal offender(s)
• participant, facilitator, accessory

Offending

Details

• involved an organized criminal group (Article 2(a) CTOC)

Procedural Information

Legal System:
Common Law
Latest Court Ruling:
Appellate Court
Type of Proceeding:
Criminal
Accused were tried:
separately (parallel trials)
 

The appellants, S.L., S. R., R.C. and V.B.C. appeal from their convictions by a court composed of Nordheimer J. and a jury on charges of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime. S.L. and S.R. were also convicted on two counts of possessing a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition and two counts of possessing a prohibited firearm.The appellant, Jose Alvarez, appeals from his convictions by Molloy J., sitting without a jury, on various drug and firearms-related charges, among other charges. A great deal of the evidence against the appellants was obtained during interception of private communications, physical surveillance and surreptitious entry into premises pursuant to general warrants. For the following reasons, the appeals are dismissed.

 
 
Proceeding #1:
  • Stage:
    appeal
  • Official Case Reference:
    C51429, C51469, C51606, C52075
  • Court

    Location

  • City/Town:
    Ontario
  • • Criminal

    Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

    Respondent:
    S. L.
    Gender:
    Male
    Respondent:
    V.B. C.
    Gender:
    Male
    Respondent:
    R. C.
    Gender:
    Male
    Respondent:
    S. R.
    Gender:
    Male
    Respondent:
    J. Alvarez
    Gender:
    Male

    Court

    Court of Appeal for Ontario