André

The accused, a racialized single mother with a history of socio-economic disadvantage, was convicted by a jury of importing 1,390 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drug, and the mitigating factors including the accused's lack of a criminal record, compliance with bail, and systemic racial and socio-economic disadvantages.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate but deviated below the established range of four to six years due to the systemic forces that constrained the accused's choices, sentencing her to three years imprisonment.

The accused was convicted of possession of 15 kilograms of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a sting operation involving the US-DEA and RCMP.

Prior to sentencing, the accused brought an application alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the failure to bring it prior to trial was fatal and that the net delay was below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court sentenced the accused to 8 years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the large quantity and high purity of the cocaine.

The applicant, a Black woman, was referred to secondary inspection upon arriving at Toronto Pearson International Airport from Aruba.

Border services officers discovered cocaine hidden in lotion bottles in her luggage.

The applicant brought a pretrial motion alleging she was racially profiled and that her rights under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter were violated.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of conscious or unconscious racial bias in the officer's decision to refer her to secondary inspection.

The court also held that the routine questioning and search at the border did not violate her Charter rights, and that her statements to the officers were voluntary.

The applicant brought a pretrial motion seeking to stay charges or exclude firearm evidence, alleging his Charter rights were violated during his arrest.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant and that racial profiling played a role in the decision.

Consequently, the applicant's ss. 8 and 10(a) Charter rights were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the firearm would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence, though it found the applicant's police statement was voluntary.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and other offences, brought an application for directions on whether he must apply under s. 278.93 of the Criminal Code to adduce text messages and letters from the complainant at trial.

The court analyzed whether the communications constituted 'records' under s. 278.1 in which the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court ruled that threatening messages and an email recanting the allegations did not require a hearing, while messages of a sexual nature and love letters did constitute records requiring a s. 278.93 hearing.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, mischief, and breach of recognizance against his former intimate partner.

The trial turned on credibility, with the complainant alleging non-consensual sexual acts and physical abuse, while the accused denied the sexual assaults and claimed the physical altercations were justified or exaggerated.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence and accepted the complainant's testimony regarding the physical assaults and the first sexual assault.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the second sexual assault due to inconsistencies in the complainant's explanation for delayed reporting.

The accused was found guilty on seven counts and acquitted on one count of sexual assault.

The accused, a police sergeant, was charged with theft over $5,000 and breach of trust after money and jewellery seized during a robbery investigation went missing from a temporary storage locker.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the accused's failure to follow property storage directives and his estranged wife's discovery of a police evidence bag containing cash under his bed.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence, noting widespread non-compliance with property directives at the bureau and discrepancies in the cash found by the wife.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with robbery and wounding following a home invasion where two brothers were assaulted and stabbed.

The central issue at trial was identity.

The victims identified the accused, whom they had known from their neighbourhood years prior, both during the incident and in subsequent photo lineups.

Despite defence arguments regarding the reliability of the recognition evidence, the passage of time, and flaws in the photo lineup procedures, the court found the identification evidence credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty of all charges.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under s. 278.93(1) of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity and communications with the complainant.

The Crown opposed, arguing the evidence engaged the twin myths under s. 276.

The court granted the application, finding that cross-examining the complainant on the prior incidents was necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence by challenging her assertion that they were merely friends, and that the evidence did not engage the twin myths if accompanied by proper jury instructions.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms and threat-related offences after confronting tenants in his home with what appeared to be a handgun.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unrecovered item was a real firearm rather than an imitation, relying on video evidence and witness testimony.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, particularly witness descriptions of the bullets, proved the item was a real firearm.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, pointing a firearm at one tenant, uttering a death threat to that tenant, possessing a firearm while prohibited, and possessing a loaded firearm without a licence, but acquitted of the remaining charges.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 424 grams of cocaine and 28 grams of crack cocaine in his bedroom.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, medical issues, and restrictive bail conditions as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to 3.5 years imprisonment.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of excess blood alcohol.

The trial judge had ruled that the qualified technician's viva voce evidence regarding the certification of the alcohol standard solution was hearsay and inadmissible without a Certificate of Analyst.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law.

The court held that the presumption of accuracy under s. 320.31(1) of the Criminal Code can be proven by the viva voce evidence of an intoxilizer technician without the need to tender a certificate of an analyst.

A finding of guilt was entered.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the two children of the marriage and child support, while the respondent father also sought sole custody or increased access.

The court found that the mother had been the primary caregiver and that the children were well cared for, despite the father's allegations of abuse which were contradicted by Children's Aid Society evidence.

The court granted sole custody to the mother and ordered the father to pay table child support.

The father was granted weekly access, to be expanded to include overnight access after a six-month period to allow him to rebuild his relationship with the children.

The applicant, jointly charged with two co-accused for importing cocaine, brought an application for an adjournment of the trial due to his counsel's unavailability, or alternatively, for severance from his co-accused or severance of one count.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the request for an adjournment, finding that the applicant's right to counsel of choice did not override the co-accused's right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The court also dismissed the severance applications, concluding that the factors, including the risk of inconsistent verdicts and the legal nexus between the counts, strongly favoured a joint trial.

The offender pled guilty to possession of 6.2 grams of heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to nine years imprisonment, while the defence sought time served and probation.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record and the highly addictive nature of the drugs as aggravating factors, balanced against his guilty plea and employment as mitigating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment, less 7.5 months credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 22.5 months of additional custody.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit text messages between the accused and a co-conspirator sent days before a fatal robbery.

The Crown argued the messages, which discussed purchasing a firearm, were probative of the accused's knowledge that the robbery's purpose was to obtain firearms.

The accused opposed, arguing the messages constituted highly prejudicial propensity evidence.

The court held the messages were admissible as specific propensity evidence, finding their probative value outweighed the moral and reasoning prejudice, provided certain inflammatory portions were redacted and a limiting instruction was given to the jury.

The applicant, a young person charged with first degree murder, brought an application to sit at counsel table during his trial instead of the prisoner's box.

The Crown opposed the application but raised no security concerns.

The court granted the application, noting the seriousness of the charge, the potential for prejudice against racialized persons, the lack of evidence disproving potential prejudice from sitting in the dock, and the facilitation of communication with counsel.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 1,381 grams of cocaine into Canada after arriving at Pearson International Airport from Jamaica.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought three to three and a half years.

The court considered the offender's difficult background, lack of prior drug record, and employment history as mitigating factors, balanced against the aggravating factors of the quantity of drugs and her prior criminal record for fraud and theft.

The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 1.34 kilograms of cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of 45 months, while the defence sought 30 months.

The court considered the offender's significant personal hardships, including a difficult upbringing, abuse, severe health challenges, and a long history of steady employment despite these issues.

Finding that the offender's unique circumstances justified a departure from the usual 3 to 5 year range for importing a kilogram of cocaine, the court imposed a sentence of 33 months imprisonment.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 11.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 11 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the large quantity of drugs and financial motive, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and status as a courier.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years imprisonment, along with a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.