Andrea Levans

The accused, charged with possession of property obtained by crime and laundering proceeds of crime, brought a pre-trial application to exclude Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) documents obtained by the investigating officer.

The officer had requested the documents under s. 241(3) of the Income Tax Act, relying on previous, unrelated charges.

The court found that for an investigation into potential new charges, the officer was required to obtain a judicial order under s. 462.48(3) of the Criminal Code.

The warrantless search of the taxpayer information violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the CRA documents from evidence and excised references to them from the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

However, the court found that the edited ITOs still contained sufficient reliable evidence to support the General Production Orders, and declined to exclude the evidence obtained through those orders.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance of two residences and the subsequent seizure of large quantities of drugs and cash.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the prohibited substances and property, as other individuals had access to the residences and the items were not in plain view.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused, Ahmed Ahmed, pleaded guilty to multiple offences including trafficking in crack cocaine, possession of proceeds of crime, possession of a loaded restricted weapon, possession of a firearm in violation of a prohibition order, and breach of recognizance.

The court considered aggravating factors such as a significant related criminal record, unlawful possession of a loaded handgun in violation of prior orders, and the harmful nature of crack cocaine.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and compliance with restrictive house arrest bail conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The judge applied principles of deterrence, denunciation, and totality, giving credit for pre-sentence custody (with additional credit for COVID-19 conditions) and restrictive bail.

The final sentence imposed was 1,006 days (approximately 2 years and 9 months) of incarceration, a lifetime firearm prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of money and items.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether there is sufficient evidence to commit seven accused persons to stand trial on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and unlawful entry arising from a brutal attack on the victim in the early morning hours of November 17, 2013.

The Crown's theory is that the attack was undertaken in retaliation for an assault on the brother of one of the accused the previous day.

The court applies the prima facie case standard, examining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of each charge.

The decision addresses complex issues regarding the mens rea of attempted murder, the admissibility of hearsay statements, the evaluation of circumstantial identification evidence, and the requirements for party liability.

The Crown brought a section 540(7) application seeking to admit witness statements as evidence at a preliminary inquiry without requiring the witnesses to testify.

The application involved four key witnesses: Jessica Walker, Samantha Daoust, Mark Sudiacal, and Jason Klein.

The Crown sought to admit their statements under the Criminal Code provision that permits justices to receive evidence that would not otherwise be admissible if the justice considers it credible or trustworthy.

The court admitted the statements of Daoust, Sudiacal, and Klein, as well as the videotaped statements of Walker, but excluded Walker's off-camera statement recorded in police notes.

The decision provides comprehensive guidance on the interpretation and application of section 540(7).

The Crown sought reconsideration of a preliminary inquiry judge's ruling denying a section 540(7) application to file transcripts of witness statements.

The initial judge had rejected the application as inadequately presented and lacking sufficient grounding.

The Crown subsequently renewed the application with a fuller record.

The presiding judge ruled that reconsideration was permissible, finding that the initial ruling was not a final determination on the merits of section 540(7) admissibility but rather a rejection of the application as presented.

The judge held that interlocutory evidentiary rulings can be reconsidered where there is no prejudice to the defence and where the interests of justice support reconsideration, particularly in preliminary inquiries where evidentiary errors cannot be appealed.

The court addressed a constitutional challenge to the victim surcharge provision in the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued that a prior declaration of unconstitutionality made by the judge in R. v. Michael was not available to be applied in the present case unless a new Charter application was brought.

The judge rejected the Crown's position and held that provincial court judges have the power to issue declarations of invalidity under s.52 of the Constitution Act, and that such declarations have persuasive precedential value in subsequent cases.

The judge concluded that the victim surcharge was unconstitutional as cruel and unusual punishment and declined to impose it.