Alonzo Abbey

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from an encounter arranged through Instagram, the court acquitted the accused on all eleven counts, including personating a peace officer, multiple firearms offences, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault by threat of weapon, and robbery.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court held that the complainant’s evidence was not credible or reliable on material points, particularly her false account that the meeting concerned the sale of a cell phone rather than paid sexual services.

The accused’s police statement, while problematic in some respects, was accepted in part and otherwise raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also found the Crown had not proved that the accused took the complainant’s phone or intentionally pointed or used the pellet gun in the manner alleged.

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.

During a first-degree murder trial, proceedings were halted for several months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Upon assessing the jury's availability to resume the trial in the fall, the court conducted individual inquiries with several jurors.

The court discharged two jurors due to undue hardship related to childcare, schooling, and employment concerns exacerbated by the pandemic.

As only nine jurors remained, and the parties did not consent to continue without a jury, a mistrial was declared.

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, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial motions to edit the videotaped police statements of two co-accused before they were played for the jury.

The moving parties sought to excise references to fears of reprisal, the interviewing officer's opinions on the credibility of another witness, and portions of other witnesses' statements played during the interviews.

The court dismissed most of the requested edits, finding that the passages were necessary to provide context for the accused's responses and that any potential prejudice could be cured by proper limiting instructions to the jury.

A few specific passages lacking probative value and carrying potential prejudice were ordered excised.

The four co-accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to be seated at counsel table rather than in the prisoner's box during their trial.

The Crown opposed the application, citing courtroom security and the default practice of using the prisoner's box.

The court balanced the security concerns, which required six escort officers if the accused sat at counsel table, against trial fairness considerations, including the need for effective communication between the accused and their counsel during a lengthy trial.

The court granted the application, finding that the accused met their onus and that sitting at counsel table would facilitate communication and ensure the accused were viewed as individuals by the jury.

The applicant applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The total delay was over 21 months.

After deducting defence delay and delay caused by a discrete event (the complainant's failure to attend the first trial date and the time reasonably required to set a new date), the remaining delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.

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.

The defendant, Leon Bookal, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and possession of proceeds of crime, stemming from a search warrant executed at his residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession, while the defendant claimed the cocaine belonged to a friend who was staying at his condominium and had access to his locker.

The court found the police officers' note-taking inadequate and their independent recollections unreliable.

Despite some inconsistencies in the defendant's testimony, the court found his evidence compelling and was left with a reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of the cocaine and the origin of the cash.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty on both counts.

The defendant brought an application to exclude evidence (crack cocaine) found in his condominium, arguing a section 8 Charter breach due to an unlawful strip search conducted at the police station subsequent to his arrest.

The court found a section 8 breach occurred due to the blatant lack of record-keeping regarding the reasons for and the manner in which the strip search was conducted, despite finding reasonable and probable grounds for the search itself and general compliance with most *Golden* guidelines.

However, the court dismissed the application to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding no temporal, contextual, or causal connection between the strip search breach and the evidence, which was obtained hours earlier under a valid search warrant.

In a jury trial arising from a planned home invasion robbery, the court delivered written reasons for several evidentiary and procedural rulings made during the trial.

The accused sought a mistrial based on the Crown’s opening statement, challenged the admissibility of autopsy photographs and expert textile‑damage evidence, and requested a directed verdict removing first‑degree murder from the jury’s consideration for two accused.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, admitted the photographs and expert evidence, and held that there was sufficient evidence on which a jury could find the relevant accused to have been substantial and integral causes of death under the constructive first‑degree murder provisions of the Criminal Code.

Additional rulings addressed corrective jury instructions, the absence of a required Vetrovec warning for a key civilian witness, and a defence request that the Crown or court call additional witnesses.

The jury ultimately convicted one accused of first‑degree murder and the others of second‑degree murder.

During a criminal trial, the accused challenged the admissibility of a videotaped police statement, alleging it was involuntary and obtained in breach of Charter rights under ss. 7 and 10.

The court considered whether the accused invoked the right to counsel and whether police were required to cease questioning or provide further clarification.

The judge held the accused did not clearly assert the right to counsel and had been repeatedly advised of that right, including prior consultation with duty counsel.

Applying principles from leading Supreme Court authorities on voluntariness and the right to silence, the court found no threats, oppression, trickery, or absence of an operating mind.

The Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and no Charter breach was established.

A judicial interim release hearing for an accused charged with aggravated assault, robbery, threatening death, and possession of a knife.

The accused, a 19-year-old refugee claimant with a serious youth record for armed robberies and robberies, was arrested following an incident where a complainant was stabbed and robbed.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The defence proposed three sureties, including the accused's aunt.

The court found that two of the three proposed sureties lacked credibility due to false testimony regarding criminal charges.

The court determined that the plan of release was inadequate given the serious nature of the offence, the accused's criminal history, and the inability of the remaining suitable surety to control him.

The accused was detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The offenders, both members of the 'Young Buck Killas' street gang, were convicted of various firearms and drug trafficking offences committed for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of their extensive criminal records, gang affiliation, and the nationwide scope of the drug enterprise against minimal mitigating factors.

The court sentenced one offender to 12 years and 1 month and the other to 28 months, after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered delayed parole eligibility for both offenders, requiring them to serve at least half of their sentences.

During a criminal trial for firearms and criminal organization offences, the court ruled on several evidentiary and procedural applications.

The court denied the accused's requests to sit at counsel table rather than the prisoner's dock, citing security concerns and courtroom configuration.

The court admitted voice messages retrieved from an accused's phone that demonstrated a willingness to commit robbery, finding them highly probative of gang association.

The court also delivered mixed rulings on the admissibility of intercepted communications used for voice identification, admitting one as circumstantial evidence of state of mind while excluding others.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder, brought pre-trial applications to exclude evidence under the Charter.

They alleged arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and right to counsel violations.

The court found that the initial investigative detentions and arrests were lawful and that the examination of the accused's shoes did not violate section 8.

However, the court found a section 9 violation for both accused because the police deliberately delayed bringing them before a Justice of the Peace within 24 hours in order to obtain statements.

Consequently, the statements made at the police station were excluded under section 24(2).

The expert evidence regarding gunshot residue and footwear impressions was ruled admissible.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and several firearm offences after shooting a man in the neck following a birthday party and pointing the gun at the victim's girlfriend.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the offender sought 6 to 7 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for unprovoked gun violence in a public place.

The court granted enhanced pre-trial custody credit of 1.5 to 1 due to harsh jail conditions and the offender's early intention to plead guilty, resulting in a net sentence of 7 years.

The three accused were arrested while exiting an apartment building and entering a taxi, and each was found in possession of a loaded handgun.

They brought a Charter motion alleging violations of their rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10, arguing they were unlawfully detained and searched.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative detention and pat search based on the totality of the circumstances, including the high-crime area, a recent shooting, and the accused's behaviour.

The Charter motions were dismissed, the firearms were admitted into evidence, and the accused were found guilty.