A. Herscovitch

The accused, a 28-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to possessing 520 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding that a conditional sentence would not adequately address these objectives given the quantity of drugs and the profit motive.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day of imprisonment, followed by three years of probation.

The Crown applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision committing the accused to stand trial for second-degree murder rather than first-degree murder.

The Crown argued that the act of pointing a gun at the victim's head during an attempted robbery constituted unlawful confinement, thereby elevating the offence to first-degree murder.

The reviewing court agreed, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by misunderstanding the elements of unlawful confinement and failing to consider the inference most favourable to the Crown.

The application was granted, the discharge was quashed, and the matter was remitted with a direction to commit the accused for first-degree murder.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, applied for bail under s. 469 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the applicant's serious criminal record and the gravity of the offence.

The court found that the Crown's case was weak, relying entirely on recanted statements from an unsavoury witness obtained during a 'Mr. Big' operation, which contradicted objective evidence.

The court concluded the applicant met his onus on both grounds and granted release on strict house arrest conditions with sureties.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit text messages between the accused and a co-conspirator sent days before a fatal robbery.

The Crown argued the messages, which discussed purchasing a firearm, were probative of the accused's knowledge that the robbery's purpose was to obtain firearms.

The accused opposed, arguing the messages constituted highly prejudicial propensity evidence.

The court held the messages were admissible as specific propensity evidence, finding their probative value outweighed the moral and reasoning prejudice, provided certain inflammatory portions were redacted and a limiting instruction was given to the jury.

The applicant, a young person charged with first degree murder, brought an application to sit at counsel table during his trial instead of the prisoner's box.

The Crown opposed the application but raised no security concerns.

The court granted the application, noting the seriousness of the charge, the potential for prejudice against racialized persons, the lack of evidence disproving potential prejudice from sitting in the dock, and the facilitation of communication with counsel.

The accused applied for a change of venue under s. 599(1)(a) of the Criminal Code in relation to charges of first-degree murder and offering an indignity to human remains.

They argued that extensive pre‑trial publicity, community hostility, and alleged inadequacies in the Sault Ste.

Marie courthouse facilities created a reasonable likelihood of juror prejudice and an unfair trial.

The court reviewed the governing jurisprudence on venue changes and the safeguards inherent in the jury selection and trial process.

It concluded that the applicants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that community bias or prejudice could not be mitigated through those safeguards.

The court also found that the courthouse facilities were capable of accommodating the trial and that logistical concerns did not justify relocation.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for first degree murder on the basis that the Crown had not led evidence capable of supporting the predicate offence of sexual assault required under s. 231(5)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The evidence established that the accused’s semen was found in the deceased’s mouth and that the deceased died from neck compression during a violent encounter in her apartment.

The court held that while there was evidence of both a sexual act and a homicide, there was no evidence linking the sexual act to non-consensual activity or establishing that the death occurred while committing or attempting to commit sexual assault.

The preliminary inquiry judge’s inference that the sexual activity was non-consensual improperly conflated the violent killing with the earlier sexual act and relied on speculation rather than evidence.

The committal for first degree murder was therefore quashed, but the accused was ordered to stand trial for second degree murder.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant.

The applicant argued the search violated s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

After considering the evidentiary record, including cross‑examination of the investigating detective and submissions from both parties, the court found no basis to exclude the evidence.

The application to exclude the fruits of the search warrant was dismissed.

The accused had pleaded guilty to luring a child, sexual interference, and making child pornography.

The Crown intended to pursue a dangerous offender application, and a lengthy hearing had been scheduled.

Due to the presiding judge becoming unavailable because of commitments to a lengthy homicide trial, the issue arose whether the sentencing and dangerous offender proceedings should be adjourned or continued before another judge.

Interpreting s. 669.2(1) of the Criminal Code broadly, the court held that another judge may continue proceedings where the original judge is unable to proceed within a reasonable time.

Given the substantial delay that would otherwise result and the interests of justice for both the accused and the complainant, the matter was directed to proceed before another assigned judge.

The Crown brought a combined application under ss. 486.1, 486.2, and 715.1 of the Criminal Code in a prosecution for alleged sexual offences against a minor.

The Crown sought to permit the complainant to testify by videolink and to introduce the complainant’s videotaped police statement as evidence in chief.

The court permitted testimony by videolink but required cross‑examination to occur from the courtroom rather than in the witness room to avoid intimidation and logistical concerns.

The court dismissed the Crown’s application under s. 715.1, finding that the videotaped statement—recorded approximately three and a half years after the first alleged offence—was not made within a reasonable time.

The court held that the Crown bears the burden on a balance of probabilities to establish the timing requirement under s. 715.1.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, arguing a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The warrant was based on a tip from a confidential informant regarding marijuana trafficking.

The court applied the Debot framework to assess whether the informant's tip was compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court found that while the informant's credibility was unascertainable, the compelling nature of the tip, combined with police corroboration of biographical details and the applicant's criminal record, provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after being caught transporting 253 grams of cocaine, along with marijuana and oxycodone.

He was acting as a courier for financial gain and had no prior criminal record.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation but also considered the offender's rehabilitative prospects.

The offender was sentenced to 14 months in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The four accused were charged with aggravated assault following an altercation with another inmate at a correctional centre.

The incident began as a consensual fight between one accused and the victim, but moved behind a partition out of view of surveillance cameras, where the victim sustained severe, life-threatening head injuries.

The Crown relied on surveillance video and the testimony of another inmate, but did not call the victim or other eyewitnesses.

The court found the inmate witness unreliable and the video insufficient to identify two of the accused.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove who inflicted the injuries or that there was a common intention to assault the victim.

All four accused were found not guilty.