Alexa Banister-Thompson

In a criminal pretrial evidentiary ruling in a sexual-offence prosecution, the court determined cross-applications by the prosecution and the accused regarding prior discreditable conduct and defence-held records under Criminal Code ss. 278.92 and 278.93.

Applying the governing admissibility framework, the court held that the prosecution’s proposed background and narrative bad-character evidence lacked sufficient material relevance and probative force, and that its prejudicial risks outweighed any limited value.

On the accused’s application, the court held family law materials were not "records" under s. 278.1, dismissed portions linked to a now-moot response theory, and declined to assess sexual-activity messages absent a proper s. 276 application.

The court found selected text-message tabs were capable of meeting the Stage One threshold by supporting a potential motive-to-fabricate theory and directed those materials forward to Stage Two.

The decision addresses three main issues: (1) the application to re-open the trial to reconsider the s. 24(2) Charter analysis in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. McGowan-Morris, (2) the application for a stay of proceedings due to delay in conducting the accused’s bail hearing, and (3) the appropriate sentence for the accused, Ivor Shawn Young, following his conviction for unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of cocaine.

The court found a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter rights but concluded that exclusion of the evidence was not warranted.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, and a sentence of three years’ imprisonment (less credit for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit) was imposed.

The court sentenced Calvin Au, a Toronto Police Service officer, for assaulting Chadd Facey after a failed transaction involving a fake watch.

The court found Au used excessive force in taking Facey to the ground, though not in his capacity as a police officer.

The sentence imposed was a suspended sentence and 12 months probation, with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The decision discusses the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact on the victim’s family and community, and the heightened standards for police officers convicted of assault.

The court considered whether the defence must bring an application under subsection 278.3(1) of the Criminal Code for production of a Law Enforcement Complaints Agency complaint form completed by the complainant prior to police involvement.

The court ruled that the accused must bring the application, following the technical requirements of the Criminal Code and Supreme Court authority, and set out directions for the process and timelines.

This decision concerns a sexual assault charge against Shou Ma arising from an incident at a professional reception.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility of the complainant, an independent witness, and the accused.

Despite some corroboration from an independent witness, the judge found significant inconsistencies and credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding the number of alleged incidents and her state of intoxication.

The accused denied intentional touching, and the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally grabbed the complainant’s buttocks or that there was a lack of consent.

The charge was dismissed.

This trial concerned charges of unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of cocaine against two defendants.

The court applied principles of constructive possession and circumstantial evidence.

Ivor Shawn Young was found guilty of all charges, as the court concluded that the black backpack containing the gun and cocaine was between his legs, readily accessible, and the presence of a large amount of cash on him supported the inference of drug trafficking.

Justin Dyer was found not guilty of all charges, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about the cocaine or the gun in the black backpack, despite his possession of cannabis in a separate backpack.

The appellant, Dmitri Davidov, appealed his conviction for importation and conspiracy to import cocaine, and sought leave to appeal a non-communication order.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by improperly using inconsistencies between the appellant's pre-trial police statement and trial testimony to infer guilt, rather than solely for credibility assessment.

However, the court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, finding the evidence of guilt overwhelming and the conviction inevitable.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

Leave to appeal the non-communication order was granted, but the sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the order was deemed a reasonable exercise of discretion to protect witnesses.

The appellant appealed a conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing consent and credibility.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge's credibility assessment was intelligible, coherent, and based on the totality of the evidence, particularly the implausibility of the appellant's account and the plausibility of the complainant's testimony and physical state.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings.

The accused, a trucking dispatcher, was found guilty of importing 50 kilograms of cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine.

The Crown sought 13 to 15 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 9 to 12 years.

The court considered the significant quantity of cocaine, the accused's role in directing an unknowing driver, and his lack of a criminal record.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 years for importing and 9 years for conspiracy, to be served concurrently, less 104 days of pre-sentence and Downes credit, resulting in a net sentence of 11 years and 261 days.

The plaintiff sought an order to exclude co-defendant police officers from each other's examinations for discovery and to prohibit communication between them until the conclusion of discoveries.

The plaintiff argued this was necessary due to a risk of tailored or parroted testimony, citing the officers' prior conduct in criminal proceedings where they admitted to obstruction of justice.

The defendants opposed, asserting their right to attend and arguing no sufficient risk of tailoring existed.

The court granted the exclusion order, finding a clear risk of tailored evidence given the officers' past dishonesty, and determined that the ends of justice required the exclusion to ensure fair examinations, despite the logistical challenges for common counsel.