Allan Julius Lobel

The accused was found guilty by a jury of robbery with a firearm, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and possession of property obtained by crime after robbing a convenience store with a pellet gun.

The Crown sought a sentence of five years, while the defence sought four years and nine months, matching the co-accused's sentence.

The court found the accused's role was more serious as he instigated the robbery and used the weapon to strike the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of four years and 11 months, reduced by credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions to a net sentence of three years and 354 days.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Over 80 following a traffic stop where he registered a fail on a roadside screening device (ASD).

The defence challenged the reliability of the ASD result, arguing that without evidence of calibration, the officer lacked an objectively reasonable belief that the device was in proper working order, thereby undermining the basis for arrest and the subsequent breath demand.

The court found that the officer's reliance on a self-test met the low threshold for establishing an objectively reasonable belief in the device's working order.

The Crown proved the essential elements of the Over 80 charge, resulting in a conviction.

The Operation Impaired charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of impairment.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The overall delay from charge to anticipated trial was approximately 70 months.

Applying the framework from R. v. Morin, the court analyzed the length of delay, waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

Significant portions of the delay were found to be waived by the defence or attributable to inherent time requirements, with only 14 months of unwaived institutional and Crown delay.

Although some prejudice was inferred from the length of delay, the court found the prejudice modest and concluded the delay was not unreasonable.

Following convictions for attempted murder and related firearm and violence offences arising from a brief but violent incident, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence.

The offender abducted and confined the complainant at gunpoint in retaliation for a dispute with her partner and attempted to shoot her, but the firearm malfunctioned.

The court reviewed appellate jurisprudence on sentencing ranges for attempted murder and assessed aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the offender’s criminal record, the absence of physical injury, and the psychological impact on the victim.

Applying the totality principle and granting enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the court determined that a 10‑year global sentence was appropriate before credit.

After credit of 35 months for pre‑sentence custody, the effective sentence imposed was 85 months' imprisonment.

Two young persons were jointly charged with the robbery of three victims at a plaza near a high school in Ajax on May 14, 2012.

The Crown's case against D.F. rested primarily on eyewitness identification evidence from all three victims, who identified him from a photo array and in court.

The Crown's case against R.L. was based on his similarity to one of the assailants, surveillance video showing him returning to school from the robbery location within minutes, and his possession of a stolen wallet belonging to one of the victims.

Both defendants were found guilty.

The court rejected D.F.'s counsel's arguments regarding the frailties of identification evidence and found the victims' identifications reliable and credible.

The court rejected R.L.'s explanation that he had found the wallet and innocently retained it, finding his testimony not credible and concluding he had concealed the wallet in his jacket lining.

The applicant was arrested for public intoxication under the Liquor Licence Act after an officer observed him urinating in an alley and exhibiting signs of impairment.

A subsequent search incident to arrest revealed controlled substances and currency.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence, arguing the arrest was unlawful because the officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe the arrest was necessary for his safety.

The court agreed, finding breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), concluding that the Charter-infringing conduct was serious and its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with seventeen offences relating to a loaded firearm, folding knife, and cash seized during a search of his residence.

The Crown conceded that the search warrants were invalid due to the affiant's failure to properly investigate the credibility of untested confidential informants and the heavily redacted informations to obtain warrants that did not disclose reasonable grounds.

The court found a section 8 Charter violation and proceeded to determine whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2).

The court found the police conduct was seriously careless and reckless in drafting the informations, including misleading characterizations of the accused as a "Dangerous Offender" and failure to properly investigate the reliability of informants.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court excluded the firearm evidence, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute despite the serious nature of the offences and public interest in prosecuting gun crimes.