Alfred J. O'Marra

The defendant, Suzana Vidinovski, was found guilty after a jury trial of three counts of fraud over $5,000 and four counts of uttering forged documents.

The offences, committed between 2012 and 2014 while she was an administrative assistant, involved fraudulently obtaining approximately $81,000 from her employer, Core Realty Group Inc., through forged cheques and letters of direction.

The court considered her prior criminal record for similar offences and the significant breach of trust.

The Crown sought a prison term of 4-5 years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day or 8-10 months incarceration.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate due to the lack of exceptional mitigating circumstances and the need for general and specific deterrence and denunciation.

Vidinovski was sentenced to 18 months incarceration, 2 years probation, a restitution order of $44,556.44, and a DNA order.

The plaintiff sought a worldwide Mareva injunction to freeze assets and, alternatively, an order for interim possession of a jewellery set of identified diamonds.

The court denied the Mareva injunction, finding the plaintiff did not establish a strong prima facie case of fraud against all respondents or a real risk of asset dissipation.

However, the court granted the interim possession order, finding the criteria under Rule 44.01 were met, as the plaintiff demonstrated lawful entitlement to the property and unlawful detention by the respondents.

The jewellery set was ordered to be held by the Toronto Police Service pending criminal matters.

Ian Bullens was found guilty after trial by jury of offering to transfer a firearm and subsequently found guilty by judge alone of breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The court considered his extensive criminal record, prior firearm offences, and acknowledged opiate addiction.

The Crown sought a sentence in the range of 8 to 10 years, while the defence proposed 4.5 to 5.5 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, which was reduced to 5 years and 8 months after applying 22 months of pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearm prohibition and a DNA collection order.

Taylor Griffith, charged with firearm and drug trafficking offenses, applied to exclude evidence seized during his arrest, alleging violations of his s. 8, s. 9, and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found the arrest and incidental search lawful, with objectively reasonable grounds based on police surveillance and observed hand-to-hand transactions.

However, a breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) occurred due to a delay in facilitating contact with a lawyer until after search warrants were executed.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that while the police conduct in delaying counsel was serious, the impact on the accused's Charter interests was minimal as the evidence (loaded firearm and drugs) was seized prior to the breach and was real, reliable, and crucial.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of an appeal by Turano’s Home Improvement against a Master’s Report in favour of Zittell.

Zittell, as the successful party, claimed partial indemnity costs of $24,130.61.

Turano’s Home Improvement argued these costs were excessive, proposing $15,000.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found Zittell’s claimed costs excessive given the non-complex issues and the amount recovered ($39,583.11).

The court fixed costs at $15,000 plus disbursements and HST, totaling $16,756.61, payable by Turano’s Home Improvement.

Dorrin Chang was found guilty by a jury of two counts of trafficking firearms and three counts of drug offenses (trafficking heroin, possession for the purpose of trafficking heroin, and possession of hydromorphone).

He failed to attend sentencing and was sentenced in absentia.

The court considered his criminal record, the nature of the offenses, and sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and public protection.

A total sentence of 9 years incarceration was imposed, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

The plaintiff/appellant, a contractor, appealed a Master's report that found them in breach of contract for deficient renovation work and awarded damages to the defendant/respondent.

The Master found numerous deficiencies, including the use of an unlicensed electrician and safety hazards, leading to a fundamental breach and repudiation of the contract.

The Superior Court reviewed the Master's findings on a palpable and overriding error standard, upholding the Master's conclusions regarding breach of contract, repudiation, and damages, and dismissing the appeal.

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.

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.

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.

Kemon Edwards was charged with firearm offences.

The Crown sought to admit expert evidence from Detective Scott Ferguson on the characteristics of an armed person based on surveillance video, and from Dr. Robert Gerard on gunshot residue (GSR) found on the accused's clothing.

The court qualified Detective Ferguson as an expert but limited his testimony to general characteristics, prohibiting him from commenting directly on the video's content to avoid usurping the jury's role.

Dr. Gerard's expertise on GSR detection was accepted, but his testimony was restricted from opining on the percentage of particle transfer from an unpublished study, though he could generally comment on the risk of contamination and the significance of particle numbers.

The court emphasized that contamination risks affect the weight of GSR evidence, not its admissibility, and are for the jury to assess.