Adam Schultz

The accused, a self-represented individual alleged to have a leadership role in a street gang, was tried on a 21-count indictment for firearms, drug trafficking, robbery, conspiracy, and criminal organization offences.

The Crown's case relied heavily on intercepted communications.

The court found the accused guilty of multiple offences, including counselling firearm possession, conspiracy to commit robbery, firearm possession, and drug trafficking.

The court also found that the group met the definition of a criminal organization and convicted the accused of committing and instructing several of these offences for the benefit of or in association with the organization.

The accused was acquitted on counts where the evidence of agreement or instruction was insufficient.

The offender was found guilty of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine in association with a criminal organization.

The offender directed lower-level members, including youth, to transport and sell drugs in a vulnerable northern community.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors of targeting a vulnerable population and involving youth against mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and the offender's background.

The court imposed a total sentence of 13 years imprisonment, with an order that half the sentence on the criminal organization count be served before parole eligibility.

The applicant, Mohamad El-Zahawi, sought to re-open a Garofoli application to exclude intercepted communications, an order for additional disclosure, and a stay of proceedings.

The original Garofoli application, heard in the Ontario Court of Justice, was dismissed.

However, new information (Exhibit F) came to light in a related case (Askari Group) that led to a stay of charges for other accused due to the Crown's inability to disclose relevant material without compromising informant privilege.

The court found that Exhibit F was relevant fresh evidence, constituting a material change in circumstances, and that the Superior Court of Justice had inherent jurisdiction to re-open the Garofoli application despite the applicant's prior undertakings.

The court ruled that the undertakings were not intended to bind the applicant in perpetuity against new evidence.

Consequently, the application to re-open was allowed.

Following this decision, the Crown conceded a violation of the applicant's s. 7 Charter rights due to the inability to disclose Exhibit F and requested a stay of charges, which was granted.

The accused was charged with multiple drug trafficking offences and criminal organization offences related to his activities in Thunder Bay in the spring of 2020.

The Crown alleged that the accused, a member of the Eglinton West Crips (EWC), trafficked cocaine and fentanyl with the assistance of other gang members.

The court found that the EWC met the definition of a criminal organization and that the accused was a member.

Relying on extensive circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications and surveillance, the court concluded the accused was in constructive possession of drugs found on a co-conspirator, trafficked in fentanyl, and committed these offences for the benefit of and in association with the EWC.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused brought a lost evidence application arguing his s. 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence was violated when police lost surveillance video footage from a covert camera.

The footage was properly bookmarked by the investigating officer but failed to save due to a software glitch in the police Genetec system.

The court dismissed the application, finding the Crown established the loss was not due to unacceptable negligence, as police were unaware of the specific software issue at the time.

Furthermore, the accused failed to show the lost video would have played an important role in his defence, as the view was obstructed and the issue of joint possession rendered the specific location of the bag insignificant.

The Crown sought to admit preliminary inquiry evidence of a police officer (PC Stamplecoskie) at trial under s.715 or s.715.01 of the Criminal Code, as the officer was unavailable due to a workplace injury.

The defence argued the unavailability under s.715 was not sufficiently proven.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish unavailability for s.715 but admitted the transcript under s.715.01.

The court declined to compel the officer's attendance for cross-examination, finding no suggestion of unfairness or lack of full opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary inquiry, and rejecting the defence's argument to read a necessity requirement into s.715.01.

The defendant, Austin Tonkin, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs (fentanyl and cocaine), and the fact they were transported from Toronto to North Bay.

Mitigating factors included his youth (21 at the time of offence), first offender status, remorse, strong rehabilitation prospects, and a s. 10(b) Charter violation.

The court found willful blindness regarding the fentanyl.

The primary sentencing principles were general deterrence and denunciation.

The court distinguished Tonkin's case from his co-accused, Anishnabie, who received a conditional sentence due to an early plea, addict-trafficker status, and Gladue factors.

The court concluded a penitentiary term was required, but applied leniency due to mitigating factors and the parity principle.

The accused, Gilbert Anishnabie, pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine.

The sentencing hearing was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the accused's participation in a residential treatment program.

The court considered Gladue factors, a sentencing circle, and the accused's personal circumstances, including his Indigenous background, learning disability, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Despite the Crown seeking a 4-year penitentiary sentence, the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found the facts distinguishable from other fentanyl trafficking cases, noting the offender's lack of knowledge regarding fentanyl and his low degree of responsibility.

A conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by two years probation, was imposed, emphasizing rehabilitation, denunciation, and deterrence, and addressing the systemic over-incarceration of Aboriginal people.

The offender pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cocaine while incarcerated in a federal penitentiary.

The Crown sought a three-year prison sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record and the seriousness of the offence, but also weighed significant mitigating factors, including his youth, systemic anti-Black racism, strict compliance with bail conditions, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

Following a wiretap prosecution involving multiple accused, the court considered conspiracy, firearms trafficking by offer, drug trafficking conspiracy, robbery conspiracy, and criminal organization allegations arising from intercepted jail and street communications.

The court acquitted on the firearm conspiracy counts after finding a reasonable doubt whether one accused merely pretended to agree, but convicted that accused of offering to transfer a firearm because he made a genuine-looking offer perceived as such by the recipient.

A co-accused's guilty plea to conspiracy to traffic in a controlled substance was narrowed on the facts to cocaine rather than heroin.

The court rejected the robbery conspiracy and criminal organization allegations, holding the evidence showed loosely connected criminal conduct and friendship networks rather than the structure, continuity, and cohesion required for a criminal organization.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude intercepted communications obtained under a Part VI wiretap authorization issued during a large‑scale police investigation into alleged fraud and violence within the Greater Toronto Area tow‑truck industry.

They argued the authorization was facially invalid, that the Information to Obtain failed to establish reasonable grounds, that the affiant made material omissions and misrepresentations, and that confidential informant summaries were inadequate.

The court conducted both facial and sub‑facial review of the ITO, including amplification based on cross‑examination of the affiant.

It held that any drafting defects could be addressed through severance and that the ITO, viewed holistically, established a credibly‑based probability that a criminal organization associated with the Paramount Group engaged in fraud and violence.

The court also found no deliberate misconduct by the affiant and ruled the judicial summaries provided a meaningful basis to challenge informant evidence.

Shemar Nelson was charged with possession of cocaine for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime following a police operation.

The defence sought to exclude evidence based on alleged breaches of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and argued a lack of continuity for the seized items.

The court found no Charter breaches, ruling that the investigative detention, safety search of a satchel, and delay in advising counsel were justified by officer safety concerns and the circumstances.

The court also found the subsequent overholding of the accused was not arbitrary.

However, the court found significant discrepancies in the chain of custody and documentation of the seized evidence, including differing descriptions of items, lack of photographs, and items appearing/disappearing from the property attributed to the accused.

These issues created a reasonable doubt regarding the continuity of the cocaine and cash.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all charges.

The applicants, charged with offences related to a tow truck turf war, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) that supported a wiretap authorization.

The applicants argued that the affiant made material omissions and misrepresentations regarding witness statements and other evidence.

The court applied the Garofoli test and granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on three specific topics where omissions or misstatements could potentially undermine the preconditions for the authorization, while denying leave on other topics that merely challenged reasonable inferences drawn by the affiant.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's background as a Black man raised in an impoverished, racialized community, as well as his significant rehabilitative efforts while on bail, including establishing a successful music business and mentoring disadvantaged youth.

The court found that a conditional sentence of two years less one day would adequately address denunciation and deterrence while promoting rehabilitation.

The applicants, two of three co-accused in a large project prosecution involving a criminal organization, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was delayed by six weeks to accommodate the schedule of counsel for the third co-accused.

The court found that the net delay for one applicant fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

For the other applicant, the court found that the delay exceeded the ceiling but was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically case complexity and the strong public interest in holding a joint trial.

Both applications were dismissed.

The applicant was arrested for possession of a Schedule I substance after a drug transaction was observed.

A search of his vehicle revealed cocaine and fentanyl.

At the police station, the applicant was strip searched before being given the opportunity to consult with counsel.

The applicant brought a Charter application to exclude the drugs found in his car, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 breach, as there were reasonable grounds for the strip search.

The court found a s. 10(b) breach because the police failed to allow the applicant to consult with counsel before the strip search.

However, the court concluded that the drugs were not obtained in a manner that breached s. 10(b), and even if they were, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The applicants, alleged members of the 'Five Point Generals' criminal organization, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of Tracking Data Warrants, Transmission Data Recording Warrants, and Part VI wiretap authorizations.

Two applicants argued there were insufficient grounds to link them to specific phone numbers, while the others argued they should not have been named in the Information to Obtain (ITO) as the conditions under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code were not met.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds to believe the phone numbers were linked to the applicants and that there was sufficient evidence of association with the criminal organization to justify naming the other applicants in the ITO.

The accused, Conrey Zavier Francis, was charged with armed robbery, using an imitation firearm, and disguising his face in connection with two bank robberies on January 2, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification, security video footage, and text messages.

The court found significant inconsistencies in eyewitness descriptions of the perpetrator's height, weight, skin color, race, and the hand used to hold the weapon.

An in-dock identification was deemed unreliable.

The security videos were of poor quality, and the text messages were open to multiple interpretations.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's identity and acquitted him on all charges.

D.M. was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, being a party to sexual assault, sexual interference, and inciting sexual touching involving J.B., his stepson.

The offences involved D.M. forcing J.B. to have sexual intercourse with his biological mother (M.M.), D.M.'s wife.

The court applied the Kienapple principle, convicting D.M. on the charge of being a party to sexual assault under s. 272 of the Criminal Code, and conditionally staying other counts.

Considering aggravating factors such as the egregious breach of trust, the two incidents, the forced incestuous acts, and D.M.'s lack of insight and amenability to treatment, the court imposed a sentence of eight years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration for life, firearms prohibition, and a s. 161 prohibition order.

Sentencing decision following a jury conviction for fraud over $5,000 arising from a long‑running mortgage investment Ponzi scheme that defrauded 33 victims of more than $7.5 million.

The offender solicited investments through misleading promotional materials and used investor funds primarily to pay earlier investors and finance personal expenses and an affluent lifestyle.

Many victims were elderly retirees who suffered devastating financial and psychological consequences.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for large‑scale fraud involving breach of trust.

A seven‑year penitentiary sentence was imposed before credit, with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody reducing the custodial term to three years, along with restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture equal to the fraud amount.