Si une personne quitte son domicile et se livre ensuite à des transactions de stupéfiants, il y a de fortes chances pour qu'il y ait des stupéfiants dans son domicile

R. v. Gomboc, 2022 ONCA 885 

Lien vers la décision

[27]      We would similarly dismiss this ground of appeal. The appellant’s conduct established a credibility-based probability that he was engaged in drug trafficking – and, more importantly, that evidence would be found at his new residence. The trial judge’s reasons outlined this evidence in detail. The appellant had been seen leaving and returning to his former residence at 32 Royal Oak Drive after engaging in activities consistent with drug transactions. This pattern of conduct continued after the appellant moved to 6 Gibbon Drive on March 15, 2016. In addition, a confidential informant had informed the police that the appellant kept a cocaine press. As well, police observed the red cracker box being brought into the appellant’s new residence by Mr. Szymanski following a drug transaction.

[28]      The trial judge cited R v. Soto, 2011 ONCA 828, and R. v. Balouch, 2018 ONCA 770, for the proposition that if a person leaves his residence and subsequently engages in drug transactions, there is a good chance that there are drugs in his residence. In both Soto and Balouch, the totality of the evidence made this inference reasonable. In our view, there is ample evidence in the present case to support the same inference. As such, the trial judge did not err in finding that the search warrant for 6 Gibbon Drive was validly issued.

[29]      Moreover, we would not give effect to the appellant’s assertion that the trial judge applied a lower standard of reasonableness, i.e., “reasonable suspicion” instead of “reasonable and probable grounds”, to reference Officer Forest’s evidence. It is clear that Officer Forest subjectively believed, based on the observations at the appropriate times, that the appellant was involved in drug trafficking and that drug-related property would be found at 6 Gibbon Drive. Furthermore, the totality of the evidence objectively supports this belief. Viewed as a whole, the trial judge’s reasons showed that he appreciated and applied the proper legal standard, notwithstanding his use of the term “suspicion.”