A. Del Rizzo

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on impaired driving charges.

The trial judge had excluded all evidence, including pre-arrest observations by a civilian and police, under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) breaches.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the pre-arrest observations were 'obtained in a manner' that violated the Charter, as they were temporally and contextually distinct from the subsequent breaches.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to appeal a 2015 finding that he was not criminally responsible (NCR) for several offences.

The applicant had previously launched and abandoned an appeal in 2017.

The court applied the test for extending time to appeal, finding that the applicant lacked a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time frame, failed to adequately explain the seven-year delay, and presented an appeal with doubtful merit.

The application for leave to extend time was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapplied the W.(D.) analysis, misapprehended his evidence, and erred in assessing the complainant's reliability given her intoxication and memory gaps.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the credibility assessment principles, correctly understood the appellant's evidence as untruthful rather than a mistaken belief, and appropriately evaluated the complainant's reliability against the totality of the evidence.

The applicant, who had been in custody for eight months on various assault charges, applied for a bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary ground due to the applicant's lengthy criminal record and history of breaching court orders.

The court found that while there were secondary ground concerns, the applicant had already served the equivalent of 12 months, which approached the likely sentence of 12 to 15 months if convicted.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court held that the risk of the applicant serving a disproportionate sentence outweighed the secondary ground concerns, and ordered his release on a recognizance with his mother as a surety.

The Crown applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the accused of first-degree murder and committing him only on second-degree murder.

The Crown argued the judge committed jurisdictional error by ignoring inferences favourable to the Crown and failing to consider the whole of the evidence regarding planning and deliberation.

The Superior Court agreed, finding the preliminary inquiry judge erred by drawing an inference favourable to the accused regarding the interaction with the victim, and by failing to consider circumstantial evidence of planning, such as the accused's change of clothing and pre-arranged taxi escape.

The application was granted, the discharge quashed, and mandamus issued directing committal on first-degree murder.

The applicant, charged with kidnapping and forcible confinement, brought an application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of the trial was approximately 34.25 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the delay was justified by transitional exceptional circumstances, noting the complexity of the case, which involved multiple co-accused, a large police investigation, and voluminous disclosure.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a blended voir dire application seeking to exclude statements made to police following arrest for sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of the accused’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter due to significant language comprehension difficulties.

After reviewing the videotaped interview and transcript, the court found the accused did not understand the caution and never meaningfully confirmed comprehension of the right to counsel or the right to silence.

The court held that police failed to take adequate steps to ensure the accused understood the caution given his obvious linguistic limitations.

Both the brief utterances at arrest and the later recorded police statement were ruled involuntary and inadmissible.

The offender was sentenced after being convicted of multiple firearms and drug-related offences, including possession of a prohibited loaded handgun, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police discovered the firearm, ammunition, marijuana, trafficking paraphernalia, and nearly $30,000 in cash during the execution of a search warrant at the offender’s residence.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors arising from the dangerous combination of firearms and drug trafficking against mitigating factors including the offender’s lengthy period without criminal involvement, stable employment, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while applying the principle that a first penitentiary sentence should be set at the lowest appropriate level, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

Consecutive terms were imposed for the drug trafficking and proceeds offences.