Amit A. Ghosh

The accused, charged with possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a motion for disclosure of application materials related to two British Columbia production orders and the date the RCMP was advised by the Crown that those orders were invalid.

The defence sought this disclosure to support a section 8 Charter challenge to authorizations obtained in Ontario.

The court granted the application, finding that the materials were part of the investigative file, relevant to the Charter challenge, and that the date of the Crown's advice was not protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The defendant, Jun Liu, was tried for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

While the commission of the offence was conceded, several Charter violations were submitted.

The court found no violations of s.8 (unreasonable search and seizure regarding screening test reliability) or s.10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest).

The court also found no violation of the right to be immediately informed of counsel under s.10(b).

However, the court determined that the police seriously violated Mr. Liu's s.10(b) right to counsel of choice by failing to facilitate consultation with his identified counsel and by not ensuring a meaningful consultation, especially given a language barrier.

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that the breath samples, though reliable and critical to the Crown's case, must be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter to maintain confidence in the justice system.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

The defendant was tried for impaired driving and driving with a blood-alcohol concentration at or above the legal limit ("80-plus").

The defence argued post-driving alcohol consumption, claiming the defendant drank a significant amount of whisky after a collision and before police arrived, which would explain his impairment and breath readings.

The court found the defendant's testimony regarding post-collision drinking and the presence of alcohol in the vehicle to be incredible and unreliable.

The court also determined that the defendant would have had a reasonable expectation of providing a breath sample after the collision.

Based on the evidence, including police observations and the collision itself, the court found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of both impaired driving and the "80-plus" offence.

Richard Aguilar was found guilty after trial for three child-luring related offences.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The Crown sought a global custodial sentence of 2 years less a day, while the Defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months of custody, along with probation and ancillary orders, balancing sentencing objectives, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial sentences.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act after cocaine was discovered in her purse during a mandatory security search at her high school prom.

The defendant challenged the search as violating her s. 8 Charter right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that although the search was mandatory and without individualized reasonable grounds, it was reasonable in all the circumstances given the school's duty to ensure student safety at an organized school event.

The court distinguished the case from more intrusive searches and held that students have a diminished expectation of privacy in the school setting.

The defendant's Charter application was denied and a finding of guilt was entered.

The accused pleaded guilty to three trafficking-related charges involving significant quantities of carfentanil, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine.

The court denied the accused's application for bail pending sentence, finding that he posed a substantial likelihood of reoffending and that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, with concurrent sentences on remaining counts, after considering mitigating factors including the accused's youth, family support, and employment history, as well as aggravating factors including his prior trafficking conviction, the dangerous nature of the drugs, and the large quantities involved.

The court also granted presentence custody credit, lockdown credit, and COVID-19 related credit.

The Crown applied to have Derek Fellows declared a dangerous offender pursuant to section 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy by luring him into a forest and attempting forced anal intercourse, possessing child pornography, and breaching two court orders prohibiting contact with children.

The offender had a prior conviction in 2005 for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 7-year-old boy and multiple convictions for possessing child pornography.

The court found that all statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were satisfied and imposed an indeterminate sentence of imprisonment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and MDMA to an undercover officer contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant raised the defence of entrapment seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court found that police had a reasonable suspicion the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking based on a tip from a known confidential source that was compelling and corroborated through database searches and social media verification.

The court also found the police were acting pursuant to a bona fide inquiry into a cell phone number reasonably suspected of facilitating drug trafficking.

The defendant's testimony that he was pressured into selling cocaine was rejected as not credible.

The entrapment defence was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm following an unprovoked attack on two strangers outside a Tim Hortons coffee shop in Richmond Hill.

The offender stabbed both victims with a blade, causing serious injuries including stab wounds to vital organs.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence for aggravated assault and a concurrent 6-month sentence for assault causing bodily harm, with credit for pretrial custody, lockdowns, and restrictive bail conditions.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication order.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified and driving with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the traffic stop, the search of the vehicle, and the adequacy of Charter rights warnings, particularly regarding the right to counsel upon a change in jeopardy.

The court found the traffic stop was lawful based on reasonable suspicion and independent authority under the Highway Traffic Act.

Although the court found a violation of the right to counsel upon the change of jeopardy, the breath readings were admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter based on the minimal seriousness of the violation and the societal interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act arising from the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of the search warrant, alleging that the information to obtain (ITO) was deficient in reasonable grounds and violated his Charter s. 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant and found that multiple passages in the ITO were materially misleading, including misrepresentations regarding outstanding charges, the alleged discarding of heroin upon arrest, and the inference that the accused walked to the drug transaction from his home.

After excising these passages, the court found that no reasonable grounds remained to support the issuance of the warrant.

The evidence was excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the accused ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant's vehicle crashed into a ditch.

A civilian found him exiting the driver's side and called police.

The defendant demonstrated signs of alcohol consumption and language difficulties.

The court found two violations of the defendant's section 10(b) Charter right to counsel: the officer failed to translate the right to counsel despite clear language barriers, and failed to properly implement the right by steering the defendant to duty counsel without inquiry.

The breath samples were excluded as a remedy.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of impaired care or control based on circumstantial evidence including the unexplained accident, strong odour of alcohol, physical presentation, and vomiting.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a RIDE investigation, the defendant failed an approved screening test and was arrested.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test readings, alleging violations of his section 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The defendant argued that police violated his right to counsel of choice by presenting a binary option between identified counsel and duty counsel, failing to provide tools to search for counsel, and inappropriately steering him to duty counsel.

The court found no Charter violation and admitted the breath test evidence.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excess blood alcohol concentration contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant challenged the approved screening device demand on the basis that it was not made "forthwith" as required by law, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that while there was a five-minute delay between the formation of reasonable suspicion and the provision of the demand, the delay was reasonably necessary given the defendant's exceptional chattiness and the operational context of a roadside stop.

The court found the demand was made forthwith and no Charter violation occurred.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having an excess blood alcohol concentration contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence challenged the validity of the approved screening demand, arguing it was not made "forthwith" as required by law, and sought exclusion of the breath readings on Charter grounds.

The court found that while there was a five-minute delay between the formation of reasonable suspicion and the provision of the demand, the delay was reasonably necessary given the defendant's exceptional chattiness and the practical circumstances of the roadside stop.

The court concluded the demand was made forthwith and there was no Charter violation.

The defendant was found guilty.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

He drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic, causing a head-on collision with a 79-year-old victim who suffered catastrophic injuries including a shattered hip and femur, broken ribs, fractured shoulder and neck, and a brain injury.

The offender's blood alcohol concentration was approximately twice the legal limit.

The offender was a first-time offender with strong character references and demonstrated genuine remorse.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed 14 months custody, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing objectives despite significant mitigating factors.

The defendant applied under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of the complainant's prior sexual history at trial for a sexual assault charge.

The defendant sought to introduce evidence of prior consensual physical contact between the parties to rebut the complainant's anticipated testimony that they had no previous "relationship" or sexual contact, and to provide context regarding the nature of their relationship.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence admissible for purposes of narrative context, consent, and credibility assessment, as it did not engage the "twin myths" prohibited by section 276(1) and was necessary for the defendant's full answer and defence.

The accused was tried for robbery with a firearm at a residential property in Vaughan.

The Crown's case relied on video surveillance footage, GPS tracking of the suspect vehicle, cell tower evidence, cell phone contact records, and DNA evidence.

The key issue was identification of the accused as one of the three perpetrators captured on church surveillance footage.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts based on a holistic assessment of the evidence, including video identification under the Nikolovski test, GPS evidence placing the suspect vehicle at the accused's residence and the robbery scene at relevant times, and DNA evidence linking the accused to a glove found in the suspect vehicle.

The Crown applied to admit recognition evidence from a police officer identifying the defendant in surveillance video footage from a church parking lot.

The officer claimed to recognize the defendant as one of the suspects fleeing from a gunpoint robbery in Vaughan.

The application turned on whether the officer had sufficient prior acquaintance with the defendant to satisfy the Leaney/Brown test for admissibility of lay recognition evidence.

Despite reliability concerns regarding the officer's recollection of certain physical characteristics and limited prior contact, the court found the officer had sufficient prior acquaintance through a face-to-face interaction and was in a better position than the trier of fact to identify the perpetrator.

The recognition evidence was admitted.

The offender pleaded guilty to publication of intimate images without consent contrary to s. 162.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The offender and victim were in an intimate relationship.

The victim initially consented to some video recordings for private viewing only.

The offender subsequently placed hidden cameras, continued posting videos online despite the victim's objections, and posted intimate images on multiple websites with the victim's full name and contact information.

The victim received over 300 calls or messages in response to an escort advertisement posted by the offender.

Eleven videos were discovered online, many viewed over 10,000 times.

The court accepted a joint submission for 18 months imprisonment and 3 years probation.