Amit Thakore

The applicant, Chad Rolling, sought a stay of proceedings on the basis that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter was breached.

The court found that, after deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay did not exceed the 30-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, Linda Lawlor, appealed her conviction for fraud over $5,000 and the fine in lieu of forfeiture portion of her sentence.

The conviction arose from the fraudulent transfer of a property using a personal security license, leading to substantial mortgages.

The appellant argued for a mistrial, claiming a misunderstanding of the charge's scope, as the trial proceeded on the basis of eight properties when her committal was limited to one.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the conviction rested on overwhelming evidence related to the specific property, and that evidence regarding other properties was admissible to show the relationship between the appellant and co-accused.

The court also rejected arguments about the defence's informed choices and reopening evidence.

Regarding the sentence appeal, the court affirmed that the fine in lieu of forfeiture is based on the value of property controlled, not just traced benefit, and that the co-accused's lack of control over funds meant the appellant could not rely on them for payment.

The defendant, Philip Grandine, was sentenced for manslaughter after administering lorazepam to his pregnant wife, Karissa Grandine, who subsequently drowned in a bathtub.

The court found the defendant's actions were planned and premeditated, motivated by a desire for freedom from his marriage to pursue an affair and pornography, and constituted a deceptive and effective assault.

Despite the absence of extreme physical violence, the court emphasized the domestic violence, vulnerability of the victim (who was also pregnant), and breach of trust as aggravating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 years in penitentiary, less 37 months for pre-trial custody and house arrest, resulting in a further 11 years and 11 months to be served.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of possession of a prohibited firearm, careless use of a firearm, and possession of marijuana following a self-inflicted gunshot wound at an industrial unit.

The appellant challenged the lawfulness of two searches: a warrantless entry and a subsequent search conducted pursuant to a warrant.

The trial judge found the warrantless search justified by exigent circumstances and the warrant valid despite exclusion of evidence obtained in breach of Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, finding no error in the trial judge's analysis of either search.

The accused was convicted of manslaughter by a jury after his pregnant wife drowned in a bathtub.

Because the jury's route to the verdict was ambiguous, the court was required to make findings of fact for sentencing.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused surreptitiously administered lorazepam to his wife to incapacitate her, allowing him to pursue an extramarital affair and access pornography.

The court rejected the defence theory that the victim knowingly took the drug, concluding the accused's actions directly contributed to her incapacitation and death.

This decision addresses three pre-trial motions in a re-trial for manslaughter.

The Crown sought rulings on the admissibility of the accused's police statements and the deceased's ante mortem statements.

The defence sought to exclude evidence based on issue estoppel, arguing it contradicted the accused's prior acquittal for murder.

The court allowed the Crown's motions, finding the police statements admissible due to conceded voluntariness and abandoned Charter issues, and the ante mortem statements admissible under traditional hearsay exceptions or the principled exception for reliability.

The defence's issue estoppel motion was dismissed, as the court clarified that issue estoppel prevents relitigation of specific issues decided in the accused's favour (lack of intent to kill for murder), but does not bar evidence relevant to the elements of manslaughter (unlawful act, causation, objective foresight of bodily harm), provided the Crown's intended use does not contradict the prior finding.

The defendant Linda Lawlor sought a mistrial in her judge-alone fraud trial, arguing that the trial's scope improperly expanded beyond the single property she was committed on, leading to the introduction of prejudicial evidence and depriving her of an informed defence.

The court found a mutual error between Crown and defence regarding the scope but determined the evidence related to other properties was admissible for narrative and context, and the verdict was not tainted by impermissible reasoning.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving adverse credibility findings and rejected a mistrial, offering a trial re-opening as an alternative remedy, which the applicant declined.

The application for a mistrial was dismissed.

This is a decision on committal to trial following a lengthy preliminary inquiry into Project Corral, an investigation by the Integrated Guns and Gangs Task Force into alleged criminal organizations in northwest Toronto.

The Crown sought committal on 71 charges arising from evidence heard at the preliminary inquiry, including charges of trafficking in cocaine, marijuana, firearms and ammunition, conspiracy, counselling, obstruction of justice, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzed voice identification evidence from intercepted communications, the meaning of coded language used by the accused, and the elements of possession, trafficking, conspiracy, and criminal organization offences.

The court ordered most accused to stand trial on the majority of charges, with some discharges on specific counts.