Law Times

Law Times • JuLy 9, 2018 Page 11 www.lawtimesnews.com 'It is the final nail in the coffin for the entrapment defence' Legal battle over dial-a-dope operations may go to SCC BY SHANNON KARI For Law Times A legal battle over whether certain kinds of undercover investi- gations are entrapment when there is not reasonable suspicion that a specific target is engaged in criminal activity may ultimately be headed to the Supreme Court of Canada. A notice to seek leave to ap- peal has been filed over a deci- sion by the Ontario Court of Appeal last month. The June 11 ruling in R. v. Ahmad concluded that a "bona fide inquiry" by Toronto police officers was sufficient to rebut the claim of entrapment in the arrests of two street-level drug dealers. The case focused on what is informally known as a dial- a-dope operation, commonly utilized by police in larger mu- nicipalities, which involves act- ing on a tip from a confidential source. A phone number is called based on the tip and the officer seeks to set up a drug purchase during the conversation. "In the drug trafficking trade, cell phones have become an indispensable tool for dial- a-dope operators," wrote Justice William Hourigan. "Today's drug dealers con- duct their business in both physical and virtual spaces," added Hourigan along with Jus- tice David Brown. Justice Susan Himel, sitting ad hoc, issued a concurring decision. The court heard appeals jointly in the cases of Javid Ah- mad and Landon Williams. A stay of proceedings for Williams on the basis of entrap- ment issued by then-Superior Court Justice Gary Trotter, who is now on the Court of Appeal, was overturned, and the origi- nal conviction imposed by Su- perior Court Justice Beth Allen against Ahmad was upheld by the Court of Appeal in its deci- sion issued June 11. "This is the first time the Court of Appeal has been asked to deal with dial-a-dope opera- tions directly" in the context of entrapment, says Michael Lacy, who acted for Ahmad. "On a practical matter, this decision will make exposing improper motive virtually im- possible. Police basically have a free rein," suggests Lacy, presi- dent of the Criminal Lawyers' Association and a partner at Brauti Thorning Zibarras LLP. Marianne Salih, a Toronto defence lawyer, agrees that the ruling means that entrapment will be virtually impossible to show in the context of these types of drug cases. "It is the final nail in the cof- fin for the entrapment defence," says Salih, a lawyer at Edward H. Royle & Partners LLP. The Court of Appeal heard that Williams sold a total of $160 of crack cocaine in 2011 on two occasions to Detective Constable Tony Canepa, a vet- eran Toronto police undercover drug officer. Ahmad sold $140 of powder cocaine to another Toronto of- ficer, after an arrangement was made to meet at the Yorkdale Mall. In seeking to stay charges on the basis of entrapment, a defen- dant must show on the balance of probabilities that police were not acting on a "reasonable sus- picion" or pursuing a bona fide inquiry — or that police went beyond providing an opportu- nity to commit a crime and in- stead induced the commission of an offence. In the Williams trial, police did not have a reasonable sus- picion that he would sell them drugs based on the confidential tip about a suspect called "Jay," concluded Trotter. The judge also faulted Cane- pa for a regular practice where he would seek to set up a drug sale almost immediately during the phone call and did not ask for details about the tip or the suspect. "The less I know the better," Canepa testified during the trial. The majority decision of the Court of Appeal agreed that, in both cases, police did not have a reasonable suspicion that Wil- liams or Ahmed "were engaged in unlawful drug-related activ- ity" when they were offered the "opportunity" to sell drugs. However, the majority deci- sion concluded that Toronto police were engaged in a bona fide inquiry and suggested that advances in technology such as wireless phones make these of- fences more difficult to investi- gate. The court also rejected the argument that police should be required to present other facts, such as whether the area where the transaction is to take place is known for criminal activity. "Because of their mobile na- ture, a dial-a-dope transaction can occur virtually anywhere," wrote Hourigan. "In my view, where the police reasonably suspect that a phone line is being used as part of a dial-a-dope scheme, they may, as part of a bona fide inquiry, provide opportunities to peo- ple associated with that phone line to sell drugs, even if these people are not themselves un- der a reasonable suspicion," he explained. Himel, in her concurring decision, found that police did have reasonable suspicion in both cases and did not engage in entrapment. She disagreed with Hou- rigan and Brown on whether suspicion about a specific phone number is sufficient. "To suggest that an under- cover officer can reasonably suspect that a particular phone line is being used for a dial-a- dope scheme, but not reason- ably suspect that the person who answers that phone is engaged in such a scheme is to ignore a fundamental reality: phones are increasingly personal," wrote Himel. The potential impact of the ruling is the risk of abuse by police, Lacy says. "The purpose of the entrap- ment doctrine is we don't want police to initiate criminal con- duct, to be creating the circum- stances of the offence," he says. "This expands and legitimiz- es this [dial-a-dope] practice in Ontario," he adds. These police operations are long-standing in Ontario and other provinces, especially Brit- ish Columbia. For her part, Salih questions the public funds put into inves- tigating and prosecuting street- level drug dealers. "It is an enormous amount of resources," she says, noting that there are always six officers on a drug team, even for street-level buys. "There is this idea that they are pursuing the little guy to get the supplier. The reality is they don't do investigations beyond this per- son. They repeat the transactions over and over again and rack up charges. Police have a phrase for it: buying charges," says Salih. Under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, trafficking in crack or powdered cocaine, no matter what the amount, is an indictable offence that en- titles the defendant to a prelimi- nary hearing and a jury trial in Superior Court. The amendments intro- duced by federal government earlier this year, which would eliminate preliminary hearings for a number of indictable of- fences, would not apply to any drug prosecutions. LT FOCUS © 2018 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited 00251EO-92062-NP Available risk-free for 30 days Online: store.thomsonreuters.ca Call Toll-Free: 1-800-387-5164 | In Toronto: 416-609-3800 On subscription Order # L7798-8553BE-65203 $166 Hardcover + ProView eBook April 2018 approx. 1740 pages L7798-8553BE ProView eBook only Order # A26598-18ON-65203 $138 Print only Order # L7798-8553-65203 $138 Annual volumes supplied on standing order subscription Multiple copy discounts available One-time purchase Print + ProView eBook Order # L7798-8553BE-65203 $170 ProView eBook only Order # A26598-18ON-65203 $142 Print only Order # L7798-8553-65203 $142 Multiple copy discounts available Shipping and handling are extra. Price(s) subject to change without notice and subject to applicable taxes. Case Law Highlights • BP Canada Energy Company v. Canada (National Revenue) (2017 FCA 61) • Apotex Inc. v. Pfi zer Inc. (2017 FCA 201) • R. v. Bird (2017 SKCA 32) • R. v. Cameron (2017 ONCA 150) • Godin v. City of Montreal (2017 QCCA 1180) • India v. Badesha (2017 SCC 44) Legislative Highlights The edition features recent amendments to the following: • Canada Evidence Act • Competition Act • Corruption of Foreign Public Offi cials Act • Customs Act • Federal Courts Act • Firearms Act • Income Tax Act • Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act • Security of Information Act • Seized Property Management Act New Edition Martin's Related Criminal Statutes, 2018-2019 Edition Edward L. Greenspan, Q.C., The Honourable Mr. Justice Marc Rosenberg, and Marie Henein, LL.B., LL.M. Fully annotated by three of Canada's preeminent authorities on criminal law, Martin's Related Criminal Statutes, 2018-2019 Edition contains a winning combination of insight and information. Now also available as an eBook on Thomson Reuters ProView® Michael Lacy says a recent case before the Ontario Court of Appeal was the first time the court was asked to deal with dial-a- dope operations directly. It is an enormous amount of resources. Marianne Salih

• Cover