Amber Meiners

The applicant, charged with multiple sexual offences against his three children, sought production of child protection records held by Simcoe Muskoka Family Connexions (SMFC) from 2016, 2018, and 2022 under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and complainants conceded that 2024 records directly related to the charges could be produced.

The applicant sought the earlier records claiming they were likely relevant to family dynamics and the complainants' credibility.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish that the disputed records were likely relevant to any issue at trial or to witness competency, and that production was not necessary in the interests of justice.

The court emphasized that child welfare records attract high privacy protection and that the applicant's status as the parent of the complainants does not diminish the complainants' privacy interests.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence for the defendant, Jason Perrault, following his guilty pleas to multiple offences including assault with a weapon, which involved intimate partner violence.

The court found that Perrault met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour and a likelihood of causing severe psychological damage.

However, based on expert psychiatric evidence and the defendant's expressed commitment to change, the court determined that a determinate sentence of 10 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order with strict conditions, would adequately protect the public, rather than an indeterminate sentence.

The defendant was charged with impaired (by drug) care and control of an automobile.

The court assessed whether the defendant was in care and control of the vehicle and whether their ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by drugs.

The court found that the defendant was in care and control based on the presumption in Section 320.35 of the Criminal Code and the realistic risk of danger.

The court also found the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by narcotic analgesics, relying on observations from a bank employee, police officers, and the detailed 12-step evaluation by a Drug Recognition Evaluator (DRE), whose expert opinion was accepted.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant, charged with possession of cocaine and heroin mixed with Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked credible grounds for the vehicle search, leading to a breach of the defendant's section 8 Charter rights.

Additionally, the defendant's section 10(b) right to counsel was breached due to a significant delay in facilitating access to a lawyer and the officer's repeated elicitation of incriminating information after the right was invoked.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court concluded that all physical evidence (drugs) and utterances made by the defendant should be excluded from the trial.

The defendant, Tahir Ali, was charged with multiple drug trafficking offenses and manslaughter related to an opioid overdose death.

The court acquitted the defendant on charges of trafficking and possession for trafficking on April 9, 2017, and manslaughter, due to reasonable doubt regarding the source of drugs and causation of death.

The court also acquitted the defendant on a charge of trafficking on April 28, 2017, as the specific substance trafficked was not proven.

However, the defendant was convicted of possession of heroin and furanyl fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking on April 28, 2017, as the arrest was deemed lawful and the seized evidence admissible.

The defendant, Sheldon Campbell, was convicted of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of 6 to 8 months, while the defence argued for time served.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the insidious nature of crack cocaine and the commercial aspect of the trafficking, and mitigating factors, including the defendant's remorse, rehabilitation efforts, modest drug quantity, and difficult background.

Significant credits were applied for pre-sentence custody, strict bail conditions (2 months), and serious Charter breaches by police (2 months).

The court ultimately imposed a net sentence of 3 months intermittent custody, 2 years probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a forfeiture order.

The accused was arrested without a warrant for drug trafficking following a confidential informant tip and several days of police surveillance.

Searches incident to arrest, including a strip search at the police station, yielded a loaded handgun, cash, and drugs.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of his ss. 8 and 9 rights, arguing the police lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the totality of the circumstances, including the corroborated tip and surveillance observations, provided objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest and subsequent searches.

During jury selection for a drug trafficking trial, the defence brought three motions regarding the composition of the jury.

The defence sought to strike the predominantly white jury panel for lacking racial diversity, requested the use of the newly amended s. 633 stand-aside discretion to ensure gender balance, and asked to stand aside a nurse for alleged partiality.

The court dismissed all three requests, holding that random selection satisfies the representativeness requirement, that the stand-aside discretion should not be used to manipulate gender balance, and that there was no objective evidence of partiality regarding the nurse.

During a trial for drug trafficking and weapons offences, the defence brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter to exclude a full cell phone extraction report due to late disclosure by the Crown.

The Crown had disclosed a partial report earlier but only provided the full report on the day evidence was to commence.

The court found that while the full report should have been disclosed earlier, the late disclosure did not warrant exclusion of the evidence.

The court held that a one-week adjournment was sufficient to allow the defence to review the report and attenuate any prejudice, ensuring the accused's right to make full answer and defence under s. 7 of the Charter.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a search warrant issued for several cellular telephones seized from his hotel room.

The accused argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was rife with errors and recklessly misled the issuing justice regarding his identification as a theft suspect.

The court found that while the ITO contained drafting deficiencies and inaccuracies, they were the result of inexperience rather than an intention to mislead.

After excising the inaccurate portions and evidence obtained unconstitutionally, the court concluded the remaining evidence of drugs, scales, and a prohibited weapon in plain view provided sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to support the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence seized from his hotel room, alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Police officers investigating a theft knocked on the door of the hotel room.

When the door was opened, an officer observed brass knuckles in plain view and saw the defendant dart out of sight, prompting a warrantless entry for officer safety.

Inside, the officer saw the defendant with a bag of drugs and arrested him.

The court found that while the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the knock was not a search and the entry was a justified safety search.

The court found breaches of the defendant's s. 10(b) right to counsel and an overbroad search incident to arrest, but concluded under s. 24(2) that the evidence seized in plain view should not be excluded.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and weapons offences, brought a pre-trial Garofoli application challenging the validity of a search warrant for his cellular telephones.

As part of a sub-facial challenge, the accused sought leave to cross-examine the police affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court applied the Garofoli threshold test and granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on specific areas probative of whether the issuing justice was recklessly misled, while excluding cross-examination on widely known facts such as the association of weigh scales with drug trafficking.

The defendant, Shamar Bowen Soares, was charged with six counts of Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following his arrest and a strip search that revealed crack cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl.

The primary defence was a Charter challenge to the lawfulness of the arrest and search.

The court found that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for arrest based on surveillance and informant tips, thus no Charter breach occurred.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of possession of crack cocaine for trafficking and all fentanyl-related charges, due to reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge of fentanyl in the mixture.

However, he was found guilty of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of crack cocaine.

This sentencing decision follows a jury conviction of Nicholas Jenkins for three counts of trafficking and three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, fentanyl, and heroin.

Tianna Morgan was convicted of three counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking heroin, fentanyl, and cocaine, and one count of obstructing a peace officer, plus a breach of probation.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the fentanyl convictions for both defendants due to unknown quantities and lack of specific knowledge, entering convictions for heroin instead.

Jenkins received a global sentence of six years and six months, reduced to five years and 295 days after pre-sentence credit.

Morgan received a global sentence of time served (305 days) and three years probation, with a focus on rehabilitation.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking and two cell phones were seized from his person incident to arrest.

The police obtained a search warrant for his residence and vehicle, which included authorization to search cell phones found in those locations.

Months later, police extracted and searched the data from the cell phones seized from the accused's person, mistakenly believing the warrant authorized it.

The court found the warrantless search violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the police conduct was careless and negligent, the impact on the accused's privacy was significant, and the evidence must be excluded under s. 24(2).