Aitan Lerner

Jahvon Taijah Powell, charged with firearm and drug trafficking offences, brought an application challenging the constitutionality of a search warrant for his residence.

He argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe a handgun would be found at his home.

The Crown conceded the initial ITO was insufficient but relied on a judicial summary from a Garofoli process.

The court dismissed Powell's application, finding that the augmented ITO, combined with police corroboration, provided sufficient case-specific information to infer the firearm would be at his residence.

The court distinguished this from cases lacking such specific links and affirmed the principle from R. v. Kalonji that a known association between an individual, a firearm, and their residence can establish reasonable grounds.

Anthony Papilota pleaded guilty to possession of a non-restricted firearm, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and possession of a prohibited device.

The Crown sought a three-year imprisonment sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to increased gun violence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation, highlighting the offender's lack of criminal record, remorse, strong community support, and rehabilitative prospects.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by two years of probation, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and forfeiture order, balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender's rehabilitative potential and compliance with strict bail conditions.

This is a preliminary hearing ruling on committal following charges of sexual offences against a minor.

The accused, a volunteer driver for a foster care agency, was charged with multiple counts of sexual abuse involving a 15-year-old foster child under his care.

The central issue was whether the accused was in a position of trust toward the complainant.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial on all charges, determining that the accused held a position of trust based on the age difference, the evolution of the relationship, the vulnerable status of the complainant as a foster child, and the circumstances of their contact through the accused's employment.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual interference involving his grandchildren between 2010 and 2011, and with historical charges of gross indecency and indecent assault between 1975 and 1979.

Following a lengthy trial with evidence heard over multiple days, the court dismissed all charges.

The court found the two younger complainants not credible, as they admitted to fabricating stories and lies to get people in trouble.

The court also found that the conduct involving the third grandchild did not constitute sexual assault, as it involved appropriate parental instruction and medical care.

Regarding the historical charges, the court granted a stay of proceedings due to the loss of critical investigative evidence, and alternatively found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual interference involving his grandchildren between 2010 and 2011, as well as historical charges of gross indecency and indecent assault between 1975 and 1979.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence on a count-to-count basis and evidence of a prior conviction in 2000 involving sexual assault and possession of child pornography.

The trial judge conducted a ruling on the admissibility of similar fact evidence under the framework established in R. v. Handy.

The court dismissed the Crown's application to admit the similar fact evidence, finding insufficient connectedness between the various allegations and significant concerns regarding collusion, tainting, and credibility of the witnesses.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging a violation of his section 8 rights regarding an unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the police officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including aggressive driving, physical indicia of impairment, and the accused's uncooperative behaviour.

The court further found that the breath samples were taken within a reasonably prompt time as required by the Criminal Code.

The accused was found guilty of both charges, with the over 80 charge being stayed on the basis of the Kienapple principle.