Law360 Canada (May 7, 2026, 10:02 AM EDT) --

John L. Hill

Substantive law defines what constitutes a crime, while procedural law dictates how the case is handled. A conviction requires both evidence proving guilt and adherence to proper procedure to ensure a fair trial. Sometimes, the substance is so glaring that the focus on trial fairness can take a back seat.

Michael Bennett and Dylan Griggs were charged and convicted of possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of the proceeds of crime. Bennett was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment, and Griggs to 11 years. The two men appealed their convictions but not their sentences. The reasons for the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision on the appeal of conviction were delivered on Feb. 26 (R. v. Griggs, 2026 ONCA 135).

The appellants (Bennett and Griggs) were charged with drug trafficking offences following a year-long police investigation in the Niagara Region that culminated in searches of two properties in December 2019, houses at White Oak Avenue in Niagara Falls and at Wilkerson Street in Thorold. Large quantities of cocaine, fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine were seized. Other accused caught up in the same drug takedown saw different outcomes: charges against Brennan were stayed, Jamed was convicted of a lesser offence and Austin was acquitted.

Police evidence, based on surveillance and informants, indicated that Griggs and Bennett used both properties to facilitate drug trafficking, with White Oak serving as a primary base and stash location. During the search of White Oak, drugs, cash and personal items linking Bennett and Griggs to specific rooms were found. Similar drugs, money and documents were also seized at Wilkerson. The evidence of the crime was overwhelming.

The defence focused on trial fairness. At trial, the judge ruled that Griggs and Bennett lacked standing to challenge the search warrants under s. 8 of the Charter because they failed to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy in either property. The evidence did not show ownership, control or a sufficient connection to the premises beyond mere presence or occasional use.

On the merits, Bennett was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, based on drugs and cash found in the bedroom where he was sleeping, which were closely linked to his personal belongings. Griggs was similarly convicted, based on evidence tying him to the primary bedroom, where drugs, cash and his personal effects were located, including items in a nearby closet and safe.

However, the trial judge rejected the Crown’s broader theory that both men were responsible for all drugs found in the house, limiting liability to what could be directly connected to each individual. Bennett was acquitted of charges related to Wilkerson because the evidence did not establish possession beyond a reasonable doubt, despite some indications of his connection to that location.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by denying the appellants’ standing to challenge the searches. The judge failed to apply the governing principles properly by not giving sufficient weight to the Crown’s own theory of the case. Under the law, an accused person can rely on the facts the Crown alleges in prosecuting them to establish a privacy interest, without having to prove those facts independently. The Court of Appeal relied heavily on the decisions in R. v. Jones, 2017 SCC 60, and on the interpretation of that case in R. v. Labelle, 2019 ONCA 557.

Here, the Crown’s case was that Griggs and Bennett were jointly operating a drug-trafficking scheme and using the two houses as stash locations to store and control drugs and money. The trial judge, however, focused on the Crown’s argument that the men were merely guests and required independent proof of control or residence. In doing so, he overlooked that the Crown’s prosecution theory itself supported the inference that the appellants exercised control over the properties. He also treated the evidence as weak or incomplete, even though the Crown’s allegations, combined with the surrounding circumstances, provided a sufficient basis to find a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge misapplied the legal test by discounting the Crown’s theory and by imposing an undue burden on the appellants. When the full circumstances were properly considered, including the Crown’s allegations that Griggs and Bennett used the houses to store and manage drugs, the appellants should have been granted standing to challenge the searches.

However, regarding the verdicts, the Court of Appeal found no error. It held that the trial judge reasonably concluded that the only logical inference from the evidence was that each appellant had knowledge of and control over the drugs and money found in the areas linked to them. The alternative explanations offered by the defence were speculative and not supported by the evidence.

Despite upholding the reasonableness of the convictions, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal based on a standing error. Without procedural fairness, a conviction cannot stand, even when the evidence is overwhelming. It set aside the convictions and ordered a new trial for both appellants.
 
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a JD from Queen’s and an LLM in constitutional law from Osgoode Hall. He is also the author of Pine Box Parole: Terry Fitzsimmons and the Quest to End Solitary Confinement (Durvile & UpRoute Books) and The Rest of the (True Crime) Story (AOS Publishing). His most recent book, Acts of Darkness, (Durvile & UpRoute) has been shortlisted as one of five nominees for the Crime Writers of Canada’s Brass Knuckles Award for Best Nonfiction Crime Book. Contact him at johnlornehill@hotmail.com.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.