Allison Craig

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought production of third-party police records from the Toronto Police Service concerning five individuals for an alternate suspects application.

The Crown opposed, arguing a lack of likely relevance.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor test, finding the applicant met the threshold for likely relevance.

After an in camera inspection, the court ordered the production of relevant and redacted excerpts from two police occurrence reports related to two of the five individuals, subject to strict conditions, while denying production for the others.

The applicant, Zekrollah Walizadah, sought an order under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to reduce his period of parole ineligibility for first-degree murder.

The pre-screening judge applied the "substantial likelihood" threshold, considering the applicant's character, conduct while serving the sentence, the nature of the offence, victim information, and remorse.

Despite positive conduct in custody, the applicant's continued failure to fully accept responsibility for the planned and deliberate nature of the murder and the extreme violence inflicted was a significant negative factor.

The application was dismissed, as the court was not satisfied there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would unanimously agree to reduce the parole ineligibility period.

The defendant, Raymond Godreau, was convicted on 15 counts related to Fentanyl trafficking and forged prescriptions.

The scheme involved fraudulently obtaining Fentanyl patches using false patient identities, including his vulnerable mother, and then illicitly selling them for profit.

The Crown sought a sentence of 13 to 15 years, while the defence proposed 6 to 8 years, arguing for consistency with co-accused's sentences in R. v. Sinclair and R. v. Baks.

The court established a nine-year starting point for such offences, as implicitly affirmed by the Court of Appeal in related cases.

Finding a complete absence of mitigating factors and several aggravating factors, including exploitation of vulnerable individuals, trafficking in maximum strength Fentanyl, a prior drug trafficking record, and the commercial nature of the scheme, the court adjusted the sentence slightly upward.

Godreau was sentenced to ten years in a federal penitentiary, with a credit of 1460 days (four years) for time served, resulting in a remnant sentence of six years.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and an order to provide a DNA sample were also imposed.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against an unconscious victim on July 25, 2014.

The victim, aged 21, met the 46-year-old accused in a bar and agreed to go to his apartment to use cocaine.

She became intoxicated and passed out.

The accused performed oral sex on her without consent while she was unconscious.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months, emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

A SOIRA order for ten years, three-year probation with no-contact conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder in a cold case dating back to 1974.

The police conducted a 'Mr. Big' undercover investigation, during which the accused confessed to the murder.

The accused brought an application to exclude the confession, arguing that the police conduct amounted to an abuse of process and breached his right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The court found that the police tactics, which included forcing the accused to participate in a simulated body disposal, were excessively coercive and functionally detained the accused.

The court concluded that the investigation breached section 7 and constituted an abuse of process, ordering the exclusion of the confession under section 24(2) of the Charter.

During a second-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to re-examine the sole eyewitness (the accused's wife) by playing portions of her videotaped police statement.

The defence had cross-examined the witness on prior inconsistent statements made during the interview.

The Crown argued the video was necessary to show the witness's highly emotional state and provide context for the inconsistencies.

The court ruled that the Crown could not play all portions showing the witness in distress, as it would be prejudicial and misleading, but permitted the Crown to play the specific portions upon which the witness was cross-examined to provide full context.

In a second degree murder trial where the accused raised self-defence, the defence sought to introduce an exculpatory audio and video statement made to police shortly after arrest.

The Crown opposed admission on the basis that the statement was a prior consistent statement and not spontaneous.

Applying the principles in R. v. Edgar, the court held that spontaneous out-of-court statements by an accused made upon arrest may be admitted as evidence of reaction to an accusation and as circumstantial evidence relevant to credibility.

The court found the statement had significant probative value in demonstrating the accused’s emotional state, cooperation with police, and consistency with his anticipated testimony, and could rebut evidence of post-offence conduct suggesting guilt.

The post‑arrest statement was therefore admitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of an 11-year-old child on August 30, 2011.

The Crown alleged that the accused touched the child's breasts and vaginal area outside her clothing while she sat on his lap in his garage.

The accused denied all allegations, claiming the contact was innocent and that the child voluntarily sat on his lap.

The trial turned on credibility assessments of the complainant, a nine-year-old witness who observed the alleged conduct, and the accused.

The court found the complainant and the child witness credible and rejected the accused's evidence, finding him guilty as charged.

This is an addendum to an appeal book endorsement that reduced the appellant's custodial sentence to two years less a day.

The Court of Appeal ordered a further 10-week reduction to the sentence to reflect five weeks of pre-sentence custody credited on a two-for-one basis, which had been granted by the sentencing judge but inadvertently omitted from the initial appellate decision.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession of stolen property, having been acquitted of robbery and forcible confinement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding strong evidence that the appellant knew the machine in his possession was stolen.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, as the trial judge erred in assuming a two-year floor for the offence.

The three-year sentence was deemed outside the appropriate range and reduced to two years less a day.

The union applied for a direction that a first collective agreement be settled by arbitration, and an employee subsequently applied for termination of bargaining rights.

During the hearing, the employer accepted the union's proposed collective agreement.

The Board ruled orally that the parties had effected a proposed collective agreement, which required a ratification vote.

The union sought reconsideration of this ruling, arguing that contract principles should not apply and that the proposal was implicitly withdrawn.

The Board dismissed the reconsideration request.

The Board also held that the subsequent ratification vote in favour of the collective agreement could not be construed as an expression of employee wishes regarding the termination application, and directed the parties to make further submissions on the status of the two applications.

The complainant union alleged that the respondent hospital committed an unfair labour practice by filing a professional misconduct complaint against the local union president with the College of Nurses.

The union president had made inaccurate public statements at a press conference linking a patient's death to understaffing in the intensive care unit.

The Board found that the union president's statements, though inaccurate, were made without malice and constituted protected trade union activity under the Labour Relations Act.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the hospital lacked anti-union animus and held a genuine belief that the statements constituted professional misconduct when it reported her to the College.

The applicant union sought a declaration under section 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act that two companies, Bramalea and Pinehurst, were one employer.

The companies were under common control and direction, with Bramalea operating as a unionized installation subcontractor and Pinehurst operating as a non-union woodworking shop and installation business.

The Board found that the statutory preconditions for a declaration were met.

However, the Board declined to exercise its discretion to make the declaration, finding that the union was attempting to use section 1(4) as a substitute for certification to sweep a large group of non-union employees into the bargaining unit without demonstrating their support.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant union sought certification for a bargaining unit of dependent contractor owner/operator truck drivers who hauled aggregate from the Canada Crushed Stone quarry.

The drivers had previously worked directly for Canada Crushed Stone but were later required to operate through brokers, including A. Cupido Haulage.

The Board applied the statutory definition of 'dependent contractor' and found that despite the introduction of the brokerage system, the drivers remained economically dependent upon Canada Crushed Stone, which continued to control their day-to-day work, set their rates, and provide the bulk of their work.

The Board concluded that the drivers were dependent contractors of Canada Crushed Stone and constituted an appropriate bargaining unit.