Adam Boni

The applicants, charged with drug and gun offences following a police investigation, challenged the search warrants that led to their charges under ss. 7 and 8 of the Charter.

They argued that the police failed to preserve relevant CCTV footage and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that a police officer deliberately misled the affiant and the issuing justice, and intentionally failed to seize relevant CCTV video, violating s. 7.

The court also found that the search warrants lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating s. 8.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the police misconduct was egregious and subverted the search warrant process, warranting the exclusion of the seized evidence.

The offenders, two brothers, were convicted of second degree murder for the planned and deliberate killing of an innocent 17-year-old victim, whom they mistakenly believed was associated with a group that had previously robbed one of the offenders.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 13-17 years, citing systemic anti-Black racism and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court found the murder to be exceptionally egregious, bordering on first degree murder, and sentenced both offenders to life imprisonment with a 20-year period of parole ineligibility, alongside mandatory weapons prohibitions and DNA orders.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on the Crown's failure to make proper and timely disclosure of relevant video surveillance evidence, and the loss of some of that evidence.

The court found that the police were unacceptably negligent in failing to preserve all relevant video footage, resulting in a breach of the accused's rights under section 7 of the Charter.

However, the court concluded that the prejudice to the accused was minimal and could be adequately addressed by alternative remedies, including adjournments and a specific jury instruction regarding the lost evidence.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicants were found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to murder and first-degree murder.

Prior to sentencing, they applied for a stay of the conspiracy count, arguing that entering convictions for both offences would violate the rule against multiple convictions for the same delict.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the offences lacked both the factual and legal nexus required to engage the rule.

The conspiracy was complete weeks before the murder, and the legal elements of the offences protect different societal interests.

Three airport workers were convicted by a jury of conspiracy to import and importing 30 kilos of cocaine.

They used their security clearance to facilitate the importation by retrieving a specific cargo container.

The court found their moral culpability exceeded that of mere couriers due to the breach of trust and threat to airport security.

After considering the significant delay in bringing the case to trial and their exemplary conduct on bail, the court sentenced each accused to 11 years' imprisonment.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown sought to introduce secondary evidence of lost computer records tracking a cargo container.

The original records had been lost by police and purged by the company.

The court allowed the witness to testify to his recollection of the records under the best evidence rule, finding the loss was in good faith.

However, the court refused to allow a police officer to testify about what the witness told him in 2007, ruling that the defence's cross-examination did not amount to an allegation of recent fabrication that would justify admitting a prior consistent statement.

Accused persons charged following a large police investigation sought disclosure of source materials underlying wiretap authorizations to support anticipated Garofoli and Dawson applications.

The defence argued that all investigative materials, including pre‑Part VI materials referenced or relied upon by the affiant, were presumptively relevant and disclosable under Stinchcombe principles.

The Attorney General of Ontario argued that disclosure should be limited to materials relevant to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence at trial unless the defence first demonstrated a reasonable possibility that additional materials would assist in challenging the authorization.

The court acknowledged conceptual difficulties with the Crown’s narrower approach but held that existing authorities required an accused to meet a minimal relevance threshold before obtaining additional disclosure beyond what was before the authorizing judge.

Applying principles of judicial comity and following prior decisions adopting that approach, the court dismissed the disclosure applications.