Witness descriptions of cocaine deals at Elliot Lake man's home were enough for a warrant, appeal panel rules

An Elliot Lake man is now doing time after the province's top court upheld his 2015 conviction on three drug-related offences.

Fred Rojas-Machuca is behind bars for 18 months, and then will be on probation for two years, following an Ontario Court of Appeal decision last week dismissing his appeal.

The court concluded his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were not violated.

Ontario Court Justice Robert Villeneuve found him guilty of three charges — possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana and possession of stolen property — on Dec. 4, 2015 in Elliot Lake.

The Ontario Court of Appeal heard Rojas-Machuca's appeal of the conviction on April 18 in Toronto and dismissed it that day, releasing a written copy of the oral reasons on Friday.

He maintained that the evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence should be excluded, arguing that the justice, who reviewed it, erred in considering the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain (a search warrant) document.

Villeneuve heard three confidential informants provided details to the police about the accused's involvement in drug trafficking.

The first informant, who witnessed transactions in March, May, August, September and November 2014, indicated Rojas-Machuca kept cocaine in his home and delivered it on foot.

A second informant observed three transactions and said the man was constantly dealing cocaine, but didn't link the trafficking to his residence.

The third person saw people approach the front door of the home, bend down and drop something, then pick something up.

Upholding Rojas-Machuca's conviction, the appeal court didn't accept his submission that the trial judge had erred.

One of errors, he suggested, occurred because the judge failed to appreciate the "staleness of the information" because observations dating back to March were of no significance to a search warrant sought in November.

The three-member panel noted that the first informant had witnessed five cocaine deals — two of which took place at his residence — between March and November.

Villeneuve found this information detailed and compelling, it said.

When taken in conjunction with the info provided by the other two confidential informants "it was reasonable to conclude that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at his residence."

In reference to the timing, the appeal court said the first witness gave information to police about the cocaine trafficking in early November.

Villeneuve found that this information "provides in my view, reasonable grounds to conclude (the appellant) was in possession of the cocaine at or very near the time of the execution of the search warrant."

EDITOR'S NOTE: SooToday does not permit comments on court stories