Alfred J. O'Marra

The applicants, charged jointly with a co-accused on one count of trafficking cocaine and one count of possession of proceeds of crime, applied for severance from the co-accused who faced numerous additional charges.

The applicants argued that the volume of evidence against the co-accused on the other counts would cause overwhelming prejudice.

The court dismissed the application, finding a strong factual and legal nexus between the counts, no real risk of moral or reasoning prejudice that could not be cured by jury instructions, and that severance would lead to an unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

The offenders were found guilty of uttering a forged document, obstructing justice, and attempted fraud over $5,000 after presenting a forged civil judgment bearing a judge's signature.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences for both.

The court sentenced the first offender, a paralegal with a related record, to three years in custody.

The second offender, a first-time offender with minimal risk of re-offending, received a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was 41 months.

Applying the Jordan framework, the court deducted periods of defence-caused delay and express waivers, bringing the net delay to 28.25 months, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court found the accused did not take meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings and the case did not take markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Huntley Golding, sought to exclude evidence seized under a search warrant, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights due to the confidential source's alleged lack of credibility and reliability, and the Information to Obtain (ITO) failing to establish a reasonable probability of illegal drugs.

The court, applying the Garofoli test, found that the issuing justice had a sufficient basis to grant the warrant, considering the totality of circumstances and the compelling first-hand information provided by the informant, despite her criminal record and motive to lie.

The application was dismissed.

Sentencing for repeated sexual abuse of three children, including two step-daughters and a niece, over an extended period while the offender stood in a position of trust.

The court applied the child-sexual-abuse sentencing guidance emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and treated multiple victims, oral sex, grooming, and sustained abuse as serious aggravating features.

Although the offender had no criminal record and faced likely deportation, the court held a penitentiary term remained necessary and imposed a global sentence of five years after a slight reduction and credit for pre-sentence custody.

DNA, sex offender registration, and no-contact orders were made, but a s. 161 prohibition order was declined.

Anthony Birch and Lance Richardson were charged with multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, assault causing bodily harm, and threatening to cause death, stemming from an incident in Baycrest Park.

Birch was also charged with wearing a disguise.

The victims, Floryna Balagbag and Andre Pal, were robbed, assaulted, and threatened at gunpoint and knifepoint.

Both accused testified in their own defence, presenting alibis that the court found lacked credibility.

The court assessed the identification evidence from the victims and circumstantial evidence, including items found with Birch and his inconsistent statements to police.

The court rejected the defence's evidence and found both accused guilty on all counts, relying on the victims' descriptions, photo lineup identification, and the compelling circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime.

The appellant, Martin Bartholomew, appealed his convictions for three counts of assault involving the inappropriate touching of a 13-year-old student.

The appeal raised three grounds: the trial judge's alleged failure to properly consider witness contamination by the complainant's mother, an error in admitting a witness statement as past recollection recorded, and the insufficiency of the trial judge's reasons regarding the complainant's credibility.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately addressed the contamination issue, correctly applied the test for past recollection recorded, and provided sufficient reasons for the convictions.

The applicants, Marco Maone and Carlo Fazzari, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in their criminal trial.

The court applied the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases, as established in R. v. Jordan, finding the 29-month delay to the anticipated trial completion to be reasonable.

The court rejected the argument that a preferred indictment should trigger an 18-month ceiling.

It also found that Maone failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite proceedings, while Fazzari, despite some efforts, did not establish that the case took 'markedly longer' than it should have, considering the complexity of the multi-accused drug trafficking investigation.

The applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault against his wife, arguing that the trial judge erred in failing to provide meaningful reasons, misapprehended evidence, inappropriately took judicial notice of injuries, and misapplied the burden of proof.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge materially misapprehended evidence by conflating two separate incidents (the alleged morning assault and a later computer struggle) and by accepting an explanation for inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony that was not in evidence.

This misapprehension undermined the credibility assessment, which was central to the case.

The appeal was allowed, the finding of guilt quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, Jesse Bonello, charged with robbery and related offences, sought disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to the principal Crown witnesses, Tyrone Saunders and Lauren Smith, under *Stinchcombe* and, alternatively, via an *O'Connor* application.

The Crown argued the records were not in its possession and thus not subject to *Stinchcombe* disclosure.

The court found that the occurrence reports were not "fruits of the investigation" and therefore not subject to *Stinchcombe* disclosure.

Applying the *O'Connor* principles, the court determined that the applicant met the "likely relevance" threshold for Tyrone Saunders' records due to his extensive criminal record and expected credibility issues, ordering a review of those sealed documents.

However, the application for Lauren Smith's records was dismissed as a "fishing expedition" due to the absence of a criminal record or case-specific evidence demonstrating likely relevance.

In a blended voir dire, the Crown sought to admit the accused's confessions regarding two armoured truck robberies, while the accused sought their exclusion under the Charter.

The court found the statements were voluntary and dismissed claims of arbitrary detention and initial right to counsel breaches.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) breach occurred when police failed to re-advise the accused of his right to counsel after questioning shifted to a separate, earlier robbery, which significantly changed his jeopardy.

Statements regarding the earlier robbery were excluded under s. 24(2).

Ganno Abdella was found guilty after trial of trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered sentencing objectives, principles, and appellate authority emphasizing penitentiary terms for heroin trafficking.

Despite mitigating factors like her difficult background, lack of criminal record, and low intellectual functioning, the court found no exceptional circumstances to deviate from a penitentiary sentence.

The court also determined her involvement was ongoing, not a "one-off." She was sentenced to 26 months in penitentiary, less three days pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders.

The respondent, Orrell Higgins, was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm following a collision where his vehicle accelerated into a transport truck without braking, seriously injuring his passenger.

The court examined the objective standard for dangerous driving (marked departure) and the more stringent standard for criminal negligence (marked and substantial departure, wanton disregard).

While acknowledging the objectively dangerous driving and inattention, the court found that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct constituted a "marked departure" or "wanton disregard" required for criminal liability.

Regarding impaired driving, despite a projected blood alcohol concentration (BAC) range of 63-94 mg/100ml, the court had reasonable doubt about actual impairment due to individual variability in alcohol effects.

Consequently, the respondent was found not guilty of all charges.

Jeremie Naidoo, a court clerk, was charged with two counts of attempting to obstruct justice and one count of breach of trust by a public official after allegedly asking a colleague not to enter his impaired driving charges into the court's tracking system.

The court found that while the actus reus for obstructing justice was established, there was reasonable doubt regarding the mens rea for both charges, particularly concerning his intent to use his public office for personal benefit or to wilfully obstruct justice, given his open discussions with a Crown Attorney.

Consequently, Naidoo was found not guilty on all counts.

Following a summary judgment for wrongful dismissal, the parties sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed $33,839.99, while the defendant argued its offer to settle triggered Rule 49.10.

The court found the judgment was as favourable as the defendant's final offer to settle, entitling the plaintiff to partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and the defendant to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

As the respective costs amounts were roughly equal, the court ordered the parties to bear their own costs.

The applicant brought a habeas corpus application seeking release from a five-year immigration detention pending deportation, along with a claim for Charter damages under s. 24(1) for alleged violations of his ss. 7, 9, 10, and 12 rights.

During the hearing, the applicant was deported to Jamaica, rendering the habeas corpus application moot.

The court proceeded to hear the Charter damages claim, finding it had jurisdiction to do so without requiring bifurcated proceedings.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the Charter claims, concluding that the lengthy detention was lawful, subject to regular review, and not grossly disproportionate or cruel and unusual, as the delay was primarily caused by Jamaican authorities' failure to issue a travel document.

The accused was tried on a multi-count indictment alleging historical sexual offences against two step-daughters and a niece over several years in the family home.

The trial judge admitted the complainants' evidence as similar fact evidence, finding sufficient similarities to support an inference of situation-specific propensity and to rebut fabrication.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's denials neither credible nor capable of raising a reasonable doubt, accepted the complainants' evidence despite inconsistencies and delayed disclosure, and entered convictions on most counts.

One count alleging genital exposure was dismissed for want of evidence.

Following a successful summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal, the plaintiff sought full or substantial indemnity costs, alleging the defendant engaged in improper conduct by initially offering insufficient severance.

The court found no improper, vexatious, or unnecessary conduct by the defendant that would warrant elevated costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $14,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the straightforward nature of the proceeding.

The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime after a police surveillance operation.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including intercepted phone calls using coded language between a known buyer and an unknown female, and surveillance observations of a brief meeting between the buyer and the accused in a vehicle.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, finding that the cumulative effect of the evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to guilt.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old claims adjuster with over 21 years of service, moved for summary judgment for wrongful dismissal.

The defendant argued for a shorter notice period and a 10% reduction for failure to mitigate.

The court found the plaintiff's position was mid-level technical, warranting a 16-month notice period.

The court also held that the plaintiff's mitigation efforts were reasonable and declined to reduce the damages.