Alonzo Abbey

This decision concerns a four-day judge-alone trial in which Tremar Ellis was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained from the proceeds of crime.

The police executed a search warrant at a residence and found Ellis in a basement bedroom with cocaine and cash.

After considering the evidence, including testimony from Ellis and Laura Robinson, the court found reasonable doubt as to Ellis’s knowledge and control of the drugs and cash, concluding that they likely belonged to Tyler Robinson.

Ellis was acquitted of all charges.

The court sentenced Milton Urgiles to five years' imprisonment for criminal negligence causing death, following the fatal crash of a commercial truck with unroadworthy tires.

The decision reviews the facts, victim impact, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant sentencing principles and authorities, emphasizing the high degree of moral blameworthiness and the need for denunciation and deterrence in workplace safety offences.

The applicant, John Culmer, brought a Charter motion challenging the lawfulness of his arrest, search incident to arrest, breaches of his right to counsel (s. 10(b)), right to silence (s. 7), and arbitrary detention (s. 9) related to overholding for a bail hearing.

The court found the arrest and search incident to arrest lawful, based on reasonable and probable grounds that the applicant was involved in cannabis exportation.

It found that Border Services Officer McLaren breached the applicant's s. 7 and s. 10 Charter rights by questioning him without proper caution and full rights to counsel, and excluded the evidence elicited from this questioning.

However, the court found no breach of the right to counsel of choice and no arbitrary detention regarding the overholding for a bail hearing, citing the public interest due to the applicant's foreign national status and serious charges.

This criminal trial addressed whether four adapted flare pen launchers and associated ammunition found in the defendant's possession constituted "firearms" under s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence presented expert testimony regarding the devices' capability to cause serious bodily injury or death and whether they qualified as "barrelled weapons." The court, preferring the defence expert's more experienced opinion, found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the devices were capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, primarily due to the absence of velocity testing and physical indicators of significant energy loss during firing.

Consequently, the devices were not classified as firearms, and the defendant was acquitted of the firearm-related charges.

The accused, a supervisor at an excavating company, was charged with criminal negligence causing death after a driver was killed in a dump truck collision.

The collision occurred when the truck's front left tire, which was severely worn and bald, exploded.

The day before the collision, the driver had texted the accused about a steering issue, but the accused failed to have the truck inspected by a mechanic and directed the driver to continue operating it.

The court found that the accused had the authority to direct the driver's work, failed to take reasonable steps to prevent bodily harm, and showed a wanton and reckless disregard for the driver's life.

The accused was found guilty.

This decision concerns an annual sentence review under s. 94(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for M.L., who had previously pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and received an Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision (IRCS) sentence.

M.L. sought release under conditional supervision, arguing significant progress in rehabilitation despite being transferred to an adult correctional facility where appropriate youth programming was unavailable.

The Crown sought to confirm the original sentence.

The court found that M.L. had met the evidentiary burden to justify a change in sentence, demonstrating exceptional commitment to rehabilitation despite challenging circumstances.

The court ordered M.L.'s release from custody to conditional supervision, emphasizing that this decision best advanced both the young person's needs and the long-term protection of society through rehabilitation, and imposed strict conditions to ensure accountability and continued progress.

The offender, Ramez Cheema, pleaded guilty to possessing two prohibited sawed-off shotguns with readily accessible ammunition.

The firearms were found in his bedroom within his parents' home, exposing younger siblings to risk.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the dangerous nature and unsafe storage of the firearms, and mitigating factors including the offender's youth, first offender status, late guilty plea, employment, and family support.

The Crown sought 24 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence due to the serious nature of the offence and rising gun crime.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months less one day in a provincial reformatory, with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The Defendant, Jeremiah Campbell, applied to withdraw his guilty plea for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, entered prior to sentencing.

The prosecution opposed the application.

The court, applying the principles that a guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, found that while the plea was unequivocal and informed, and the defendant's testimony was largely unconvincing, a miscarriage of justice would result if the plea were maintained.

The court exercised its residual discretion, considering the defendant's age, first-offender status, potential penitentiary sentence, existence of triable Charter issues, and the defendant's belief in his factual innocence.

The application to strike the guilty plea was granted.

The three offenders were convicted of manslaughter following a jury trial for the stabbing death of a 22-year-old victim.

The sentencing judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offenders were the aggressors who tracked down the victim for revenge after an earlier altercation where the victim had cut the principal offender with a knife.

The court rejected the Crown's argument for an 'aggravated manslaughter' sentence range, finding the earlier provocation mitigated the offenders' moral blameworthiness.

After applying significant credit for pre-trial custody, harsh jail conditions including triple bunking, and strict bail conditions, the principal offender was sentenced to a further 14 months, the second offender to 6.5 months, and the third offender to time served.

The defendant brought a Charter application under s. 24(1) alleging violations of ss. 7, 9, and 11(e) due to an adjournment of his bail hearing, which resulted in two additional nights in custody.

The court found that while it was unfortunate the bail hearing could not be accommodated on the initial date, no constitutional rights were abrogated or violated.

The court considered factors such as the lack of evidence that the court could have otherwise accommodated the hearing, the fact that the prosecution did not request the adjournment, the parties' efforts to accommodate, the defendant's prior adjournment requests, his choice to forego an earlier alternative date, and the absence of breaches of ss. 503 or 516 of the Criminal Code.

The application was dismissed.

Following a trial where the accused was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault, the court considered whether entering convictions on both counts would violate the rule against multiple convictions.

The court found that the two assaults constituted a single transaction with sufficient factual and legal nexus.

On the joint position of the parties, the court entered a conviction on the first count and conditionally stayed the second count pursuant to the Kienapple rule.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a cleaner working in a downtown concourse.

The accused admitted to committing two common assaults but denied they were sexual in nature.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found the complainant's evidence reliable.

Applying cross-count similar fact reasoning, the court found that the first assault was intentionally sexual and that the second assault, occurring moments later, was also objectively sexual in nature.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant brought a Garofoli application to quash a search warrant for firearms, alleging deficiencies in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and lack of reasonable grounds.

The Crown cross-applied to rely on redacted confidential informant (CI) information under the Garofoli step six procedure.

The court reviewed the ITO, including the judicially summarized redacted material, and found sufficient grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The application was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

The applicant, facing 14 charges including assault with a weapon and uttering death threats, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained following a preliminary inquiry.

He argued there was a material change in circumstances, including a new affidavit from the complainant and a proposed Charter challenge, and that the preliminary inquiry judge erred by failing to consider his status as a Black male under s. 493.2.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no material change in circumstances, no error of law by the preliminary inquiry judge, and that the decision to detain on the secondary ground was not clearly inappropriate given the applicant's history of breaching a no-contact order and evidence of witness tampering.

The applicants, Rebecca Paredes and Matthew Stewart, faced drug and firearms charges.

They brought Charter applications under sections 8, 9, and 10(b), seeking exclusion of evidence (a loaded firearm and drugs) seized incident to their arrest.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, leading to arbitrary detention (s. 9 breach).

It also found a s. 10(b) breach for Paredes due to delayed access to counsel, but not for Stewart.

The s. 8 strip search claim for Paredes was dismissed.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court concluded that the serious s. 9 breach and its significant impact on the applicants' liberty, coupled with the police conduct, warranted the exclusion of the evidence to maintain the administration of justice's reputation, despite the societal interest in a trial on the merits for serious charges.

The accused, Matthew Hamilton, brought an application under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence from the complainant's Instagram account and Instagram messages in a sexual assault trial.

Hamilton argued the evidence was relevant to his defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent and to the complainant's credibility, as it suggested a consensual paid sexual encounter rather than an iPhone sale.

The court found the Instagram account evidence lacked sufficient precision for admissibility at this stage but allowed for further submissions.

The Instagram messages from the date of the alleged offence were deemed admissible as they related to the core subject matter and contradicted the complainant's initial statement, thus being directly relevant to her credibility.

Nathaniel Bell pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm, trafficking in marijuana, and breach of a firearms prohibition order.

The court considered aggravating factors including the seriousness of the firearms offences, Bell's leadership role in a robbery, and his criminal record while on bail.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, remorse, disadvantaged background, rehabilitation efforts in custody, and his serious medical condition (Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome and asthma), which made incarceration more onerous, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years and 7 months before credit for pre-sentence custody, which was at the low end of the range due to Bell's medical vulnerability and the harsh conditions of detention during the pandemic.

Enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody was granted at 2:1 for 430 days, resulting in 2 years credit, leaving 2 years and 7 months to serve.

The accused, Tiffany Clarke, was charged with one count of aggravated assault following an altercation outside a nightclub where the complainant sustained seven stab wounds.

The central issues were whether Clarke inflicted the wounds and, if so, whether she acted in self-defence.

The court found that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clarke inflicted the stab wounds, noting the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the possibility that the complainant was stabbed earlier in the altercation by another individual.

Furthermore, even if Clarke had inflicted the wounds, the court was not satisfied that the Crown disproved self-defence, given the complainant's aggressive actions.

Clarke was found not guilty.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath test evidence on the grounds of breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused alleged that the approved screening device demand was not made "forthwith" as required under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code, and that no Prosper warning was given when she abandoned her request for counsel and asked to proceed with breath testing.

The court found no breach of section 8, as the informal demand was sufficient and any delay was minimal and reasonably explained.

The court found no breach of section 10(b), as the Crown proved a valid, free, and voluntary waiver of the right to counsel with full awareness of the consequences.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with two counts of sexual assault against a female tenant who rented a basement apartment from him and his wife.

The Crown proceeded summarily on both charges.

The first alleged incident occurred between June 20-30, 2016, when the defendant allegedly touched the complainant's breast and vagina outside her clothing while hugging her as she left his home.

The second alleged incident occurred on or about August 4, 2016, when the defendant allegedly touched the complainant's breast outside her clothing and attempted to place her hand on his crotch while she was in the basement apartment.

The defendant denied all allegations and testified that his son was present during the first incident and his wife and younger son were present during the second incident, making the alleged assaults impossible.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and the defendant's evidence evasive and argumentative.

The defendant was acquitted on the first count due to an apparent inconsistency in the complainant's evidence regarding whether the defendant's older son was present during the alleged assault, which created a reasonable doubt.

However, the defendant was convicted on the second count, as the complainant's evidence was coherent, logical, and not significantly contradicted, and the defendant's defence evidence contained multiple contradictions and implausibilities.