Alana Page

The Crown sought to reopen its case to prove the defendant's date of birth, which was necessary for firearm possession charges.

The defence argued the request was too late and that allowing it would prejudice the administration of justice.

The court found the request was made at the third stage of trial but was permissible as it concerned a formal rather than substantive defect, and the defendant would suffer no legal prejudice.

The application to reopen was granted.

The defendant, Damion Lewis, applied to exclude evidence (a loaded .357 Magnum revolver and ammunition) obtained during a search incident to arrest, arguing breaches of his section 8 Charter rights due to unlawful scope and execution of the search.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Lewis for theft of mail, making the initial search lawful.

However, the manner of the search was deemed unreasonable because an officer pointed an assault rifle at the handcuffed defendant and threatened to shoot him if he moved.

Despite this serious Charter breach, the court, applying the *Grant* framework, declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The high reliability of the evidence and society's heightened interest in addressing gun violence in Toronto outweighed the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the defendant's Charter interests, especially since the arresting officer acted in good faith and the evidence would have been discovered inevitably.

The Crown applied under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code for publication bans to protect the identities of three witnesses (J.D., M.S., B.S.) in a murder re-trial.

The Crown argued that non-publication was necessary to prevent harm to the witnesses' reputations and rehabilitation efforts, and to encourage participation in the justice system.

The respondents opposed, asserting the paramountcy of the open court principle and the lack of an adequate evidentiary record.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the Crown's unsworn statements were insufficient to displace the presumption of openness, and that purely personal interests like emotional distress or embarrassment do not satisfy the necessity test for a publication ban.

The accused, Elaine Biddersingh, was found guilty of second-degree murder of her step-daughter, Melonie Biddersingh, after a jury trial.

The court considered the character of the offender, the nature and circumstances of the offence (prolonged abuse, malnutrition, and eventual drowning of the victim, followed by concealment of the body), and the jury's recommendations to determine the period of parole ineligibility.

The court rejected the defence's mitigating factors, including the passage of time and the accused's pro-social lifestyle, due to lack of genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at 16 years, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

Joseph Andrews was found guilty after trial of five drug trafficking offences involving cocaine, marijuana, and psilocybin, with a total street value between $32,800 and $39,300.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary term, while the defence requested a maximum reformatory sentence of two years less a day, emphasizing the offender's rehabilitation and family ties.

The court, applying sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence, found the offender was a multi-ounce level drug dealer, not merely a courier.

Considering aggravating factors (large quantities, financial gain) and mitigating factors (dated record, strong family support, rehabilitation prospects, onerous pre-trial release conditions), the court imposed a four-year prison sentence, along with a ten-year weapons prohibition, forfeiture of drugs, paraphernalia, and proceeds of crime, and a DNA order.

Joseph Andrews was charged with possession of cocaine, marijuana, and psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized under search warrants, alleging violations of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the search warrants valid and any other breaches minor and not warranting exclusion.

Following the Charter application, the trial proceeded, and the court found Andrews guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts based on circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control of the drugs found in his truck and a storage unit.

The applicant, who was separately indicted for first-degree murder, sought a partial or delayed publication ban on her anticipated testimony at her co-accused's trial.

She argued that pre-trial publicity and media reports of her evidence would taint the jury pool for her upcoming trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding no real and substantial risk to her fair trial rights.

The court held that reasonable alternative measures, such as the challenge for cause process and strong judicial directions to the jury, were sufficient to ensure an impartial jury.

The offender pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in heroin committed between October 2012 and January 2013.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two and a half years, while the defence sought a non-custodial disposition.

The court found the offender to be a low-level, addiction-driven trafficker who had made extraordinary rehabilitative efforts post-arrest, including successful completion of addiction treatment, mental health counselling, and community service.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day for the first offence, followed by two years of probation, with suspended sentences for the remaining three offences and concurrent probation orders.

The decision emphasizes the importance of rehabilitation for addict traffickers and the flexibility required in sentencing to achieve just results in exceptional circumstances.