Ontario Criminal


Words spoken by undercover officer were part of bona fide inquiry

Accused was convicted of trafficking in cocaine after selling drugs to undercover officer with accused subsequently seeking stay based on entrapment. Initial comments by undercover officer in first cell phone contact after receiving anonymous information about accused were essentially “I hear you sell drugs” to which accused immediately responded that he had both cocaine and heroin for sale. Application dismissed. Evidence of undercover officer was uncontradicted that he initially asked accused if he sold drugs. Accused chose not to testify either on trial or on stay application and did not meet onus to prove entrapment on balance of probabilities. Words spoken by undercover officer were part of bona fide inquiry and legitimate investigatory step. Response by accused added confirmation to anonymous source information. When accused offered to sell both cocaine and heroin in response to request for cocaine he was not importuned.

R. v. Charles (Dec. 23, 2015, Ont. S.C.J., B.P. O’Marra J., CR-15-90000141-0000) 127 W.C.B. (2d) 132.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?