Alex I. Palamarek

Following trial, the defendant was convicted of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of nine months, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with six months probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of three months to be served in the community, finding that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest and that a suspended sentence would be insufficient, while a conditional sentence was consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

A York Region paralegal regional prosecutor was charged with breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from her involvement in Provincial Offences Act prosecutions where she allegedly used her position to improperly influence outcomes.

The Crown relied on intercepted communications between the accused and a police officer showing discussions about favorable dispositions for individuals connected to the officer.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on both counts based on evidence relating to two specific events: the Carlton Wills matter and the Nicholas Guarino matter.

The judge found that the accused had breached her duty by giving preferential treatment based on personal relationships rather than proper prosecutorial discretion.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of dangerous driving causing death and one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, as well as seeking leave to appeal his sentence.

The trial judge refused to grant an adjournment to allow the appellant to retain counsel, resulting in the appellant proceeding unrepresented.

The trial judge failed to address the appellant's inability to read or write and his limited English proficiency despite being informed of these facts.

The trial judge also improperly directed the defence expert to conduct cross-examination of the Crown's expert.

The Court of Appeal found these errors deprived the appellant of a fair trial and allowed the appeal, ordering a new trial.

The accused was charged with breach of trust by a public officer and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice.

The accused applied to exclude her statement to police on the basis that her Charter rights were infringed.

The court found multiple breaches of section 10(b) rights (right to counsel) and section 8 rights (protection against unreasonable search and seizure).

The police failed to immediately inform the accused of her right to counsel, delayed providing access to counsel without reasonable justification, and obtained the accused's phone password before she had an opportunity to speak with counsel.

The court excluded the statement under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that all three Grant factors favored exclusion.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing death following a collision between two tractor trailers on Highway 11 near Val Gagne, Ontario on January 11, 2016.

The appellant was sentenced to three years' incarceration plus a five-year driving prohibition.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction on three grounds: that the trial judge erred in considering a near-miss incident with a Home Hardware truck as part of the dangerous driving offence; that the circumstances did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care; and that insufficient reasons were provided.

The appellant also sought to appeal the sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction appeal and the sentence appeal.

The appellant, Matthew Ruscica, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

He alleged breaches of his Charter rights under s. 10(b) (right to counsel of choice) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention).

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the s. 10(b) advice given by police met the required Charter standard and that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case of arbitrary detention for the post-investigation delay.

This is a motion decision regarding a non-publication order imposed at a bail hearing.

A section 517 Criminal Code non-publication order was in effect, precluding publication of evidence, information, representations, and reasons.

The full decision in the underlying appeal contains information covered by the non-publication order and therefore was not immediately available on the Court of Appeal for Ontario's website pending the cessation of the order.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter, kidnapping, and offering an indignity to a body arising from the death of the victim.

The appellant ordered the kidnapping of the victim, believing he had stolen from him.

The victim was beaten, kidnapped, bound, and confined at the appellant's automotive shop, where he died.

The appellant's body was subsequently burned.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the actus reus and mens rea of manslaughter were established, and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no merit to either ground.

The applicant challenged a police search of the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) driver licence database under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The police used facial recognition technology to search the database and identify the applicant as the holder of multiple fraudulently obtained driver's licences.

The applicant argued that the search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy in his photograph and personal information submitted for driver's licence purposes.

The Crown argued that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists in information voluntarily submitted to obtain a driver's licence, which is a regulated privilege.

The court dismissed the applicant's challenge, finding that driver's licence applicants have neither a subjective nor an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained in the MTO database.

The accused was charged with 26 offences related to fraudulently obtaining and possessing multiple driver's licences under various aliases.

The Crown's case relied primarily on photo-comparison technology and visual identification from driver's licence photographs and booking hall videotapes to establish that the accused was the same person responsible for obtaining licences under seven different names.

The court found that the identification evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as no police officer who had investigated or dealt with the accused in connection with prior incidents was able to identify him as the person they had encountered.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding that relying solely on the judge's own visual comparison of photographs and videotapes, without corroborating eyewitness identification, would be manifestly unsafe given the inherent frailties of identification evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for trafficking heroin and sought leave to appeal his sentence of seven years' imprisonment.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, based on surveillance evidence showing the appellant handing a coffee cup to another individual in a parking lot, which was subsequently found to contain approximately 100 grams of heroin.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to consider reasonable alternative inferences, including that the cup found in the vehicle might not have been the one exchanged and that the heroin could have been placed in the cup by the driver.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the only logical and reasonable inference was that the cup contained heroin when delivered.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding the seven-year sentence, while at the high end, fell within the established range for trafficking such quantities of heroin and contained no error in principle.

The applicant sought production of third-party records relating to an approved screening device (ASD) used during his investigation for impaired driving and driving over 80.

The Crown and York Regional Police opposed production on the basis that the applicant failed to establish that the records were "likely relevant" under the O'Connor framework.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidentiary foundation to establish that the ASD was not working properly or that there was any error in its operation.

The court held that historical ASD records could not advance a claim that the investigating officer knew or ought to have known that the device was unreliable, and that the application amounted to an impermissible fishing expedition.