R v Whervin – 2006 OJ No. 443 (SCJ – Hill):

[10] Reduced to its essentials, this involves an allegation of offences at three o’clock in the morning. On its face there is a lawful traffic stop. It is the applicant’s auto which is stopped, a car that he drove daily. There are two types of prohibited substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act found in the vehicle, as well as cash, cell phones and a loaded revolver. The allegations – and I underline ‘allegations’ – raise cogently the inference of an established young drug dealer in possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking as well as money and communication devices to ply his trade and a piece of weaponry to protect himself, his drugs and his profits.

[11] Mr. Hope is quite right that despite the apparent strength of the Crown’s case there will be credibility issues for a trier of fact at trial and there may well be constitutional issues respecting issues of search and seizure by the authorities of the relevant substances and the weapon itself.

[12] One has to bear in mind in the balance of course that the applicant is only aged 20, has no prior record, has a record of employment and has good family support.

[13] I am satisfied on the totality of the evidence that the profile of the applicant as involved in ongoing drug dealing which emerges from the evidence at this time justifies the conclusion that he was involved in the possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking and that the weapon was related to that ongoing illegal activity. I am satisfied that the Crown has established that there is a substantial likelihood that if he were to be released from custody he would commit a further criminal offence.