 |
| John L. Hill |
These dealers often used local residences as “trap houses” to sell drugs and “safe houses” to store drugs, money and firearms, with access typically limited to mid- or high-level traffickers.
Kalid Yousuf and Adrian Myles Puentes-Reed were found alone in the residence. Police entered after the landlord reported seeing firearms while making a repair. Inside, officers discovered large quantities of drugs, including crack cocaine and over 800 grams of cocaine, cash totalling over $600,000, multiple firearms, pills such as hydromorphone and over 800 oxycodone, scales, and a money counter.
Puentes-Reed and Yousuf were found asleep in separate third-floor bedrooms, apparently under the influence of drugs. Both men
Aryo Hadi: ISTOCKPHOTO.COM
The trial judge properly instructed on the law of constructive possession, citing the test from R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8, which requires: (1) knowledge of the object, (2) knowingly placing or keeping it in a location, and (3) intent to use or benefit from it. The judge also noted that merely being in a place where contraband is found does not create a presumption of possession.
Although the location of contraband does not create a presumption of occupation (R. v. Choudhury, 2021 ONCA 560), in this case, the judge accepted that the residence was a “safe house” used in a drug operation, based on the significant volume of contraband found throughout. Puentes-Reed claimed he was in Thunder Bay to build a hip-hop studio and denied staying at the house. He stated that a 17-year-old named Chudier Reat brought him there while he was in a drug-induced state. The trial judge rejected this account as unbelievable, finding overwhelming evidence connecting Puentes-Reed to the residence, including his passport, CRA documents and personal items in the main bedroom, which also contained over $450,000 in cash. The judge concluded he intended to use the home for both personal and drug trade purposes and convicted him.
Yousuf did not testify and relied on Puentes-Reed’s explanation, which the court rejected. The judge determined that the evidence — his presence alone in a drug-filled house, along with expert testimony — was sufficient to prove his involvement in the operation and convicted him as well.
The Ontario Court of Appeal considered the arguments of each of these men and dismissed their appeals (R. v. Yousuf, 2025 ONCA 441).
Puentes-Reed appealed his conviction, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended key evidence that could have shown others controlled the residence where drugs, firearms and cash were found. He highlighted: (a) the apartment’s lessee, Kiana Adams, had a warrant for drug charges and had not been apprehended. The trial judge noted she wasn’t on trial, which Puentes-Reed contended minimized her possible role; (b) Chudier Reat was initially charged in the case and was seen in a video at the residence with a large stack of money. He was later murdered. Puentes-Reed claimed this pointed to Reat’s central role in the drug operation; and (c) a blue hair comb, seen in Reat’s hair in the video, was found in the same drawer as Puentes-Reed’s passport — allegedly indicating Reat’s presence and control over the home.
Puentes-Reed claimed that the judge failed to consider this evidence in context, instead adopting a piecemeal approach and overemphasizing Puentes-Reed’s connection to the home.
The appellate court rejected these claims and determined that the trial judge did consider the roles of Adams and Reat but concluded that their involvement did not preclude Puentes-Reed from also possessing the contraband. The judge appropriately assessed the circumstantial evidence: Puentes-Reed was asleep in the master bedroom with over $450,000 in cash nearby, personal documents (including CRA forms and his passport) and his jacket containing his credit card. The judge addressed all potentially exculpatory evidence (e.g., his music career, his father’s testimony and the wallet in his pants) but found that none raised a reasonable doubt when viewed cumulatively.
The appeal court concluded that the trial judge’s findings were reasonable, grounded in the evidence and not subject to reweighing (R. v. Brunelle, 2022 SCC 5).
Yousuf appealed his conviction on the grounds that the verdict was unreasonable. He argued that the Crown failed to prove he had knowledge or control over the contraband in the residence, maintaining that his mere presence in the home did not establish constructive possession. He suggested he may have entered the bedroom without noticing the large quantities of drugs, firearms and cash, and that his presence was consistent with passive acquiescence rather than participation.
However, the appellate court rejected this argument, determining that the trial judge properly applied the law by correctly stating that mere presence does not create a presumption of possession and by avoiding the legal error found in R. v. Watson, 2011 ONCA 437.
The judge relied on circumstantial evidence, including the fact that Yousuf was one of only two people found asleep in a house full of contraband, and would have had to pass by drugs, cash and guns in plain view to reach the third-floor bedroom. The trial judge reasonably inferred that only people involved in the drug operation would be left unsupervised in such a secure and valuable location. Finally, the judge distinguished levels of control, finding that Puentes-Reed alone possessed the cash in the main bedroom closet, showing he did not conflate simple presence with full control over all items.
Ultimately, the court determined that the trial judge’s reasoning was sound, and it was permissible for him to conclude that Yousuf had constructive possession of the contraband based on his knowledge, proximity and presence in a residence used exclusively for high-level drug trafficking. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
John L. Hill practised and taught prison law until his retirement. He holds a J.D. from Queen’s and an LL.M. 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). 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.