Andrew J. Goodman

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for a forfeiture order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, regarding $48,575 in Canadian currency seized by police.

The Attorney General argued the currency was proceeds and/or an instrument of unlawful activity.

An interested party, Mathew Ross-Young, claimed the funds were legitimate life savings and sought dismissal of the application.

The court, applying the balance of probabilities standard, found the currency to be proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity, citing suspicious circumstances including large bundled cash, proximity to drugs and drug paraphernalia, inconsistent explanations from the interested party, and a lack of credible financial records.

The court emphasized that forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act is a civil matter not requiring criminal charges or convictions, and that police opinion evidence is admissible.

The court found no "interests of justice" considerations to weigh against forfeiture and granted the application, ordering the forfeiture of the currency to the Crown.

The accused, Levan Hamilton, was found guilty after trial of possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a nine-year sentence, while the defence sought five years, both less pre-sentence custody.

The court considered aggravating factors including the quantity and nature of drugs (fentanyl), the accused's extensive criminal record, and repeated breaches of court orders.

Mitigating factors included some remorse, family support, efforts at rehabilitation while incarcerated, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of seven years concurrent for the drug offences and three years concurrent for proceeds of crime, resulting in a net sentence of three years in federal penitentiary after applying 1.5:1 credit for 946 days of pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, a Black man, was stopped by police for allegedly using a hand-held device while driving.

After smelling cannabis, the officers searched the applicant and his vehicle, discovering a loaded handgun and drugs.

The applicant brought a Charter motion alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search based on racial profiling.

The court found the initial traffic stop was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act and did not violate section 9.

However, the court concluded that the subsequent safety search was not objectively justified and was influenced by implicit racial bias, violating section 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm and drugs under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused, Malik Mbuyi, brought an application under sections 7, 8, and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude DNA evidence obtained via two search warrants (TPS and Brantford warrants) in a first-degree murder trial.

The applicant argued that police circumvented proper procedures, misled the issuing justice, and engaged in an abuse of process by obtaining a DNA warrant for stale youth offences primarily to advance the homicide investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding no Charter breach under section 8, no abuse of process under section 7, and that even if there were breaches, the evidence would be admissible under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the crime, reliability of the evidence, and public interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused, Malik Mbuyi, was charged with first-degree murder in relation to two deaths and conspiracy to commit murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an accomplice, Kareem Zedan, who was deemed an unreliable "Vetrovec" witness, but whose testimony was corroborated by circumstantial evidence including DNA, CCTV footage, and cellphone records.

The court found the accused to be the shooter and to have the requisite intent for murder (transferred intent for one victim, gratuitous for the other).

However, due to the inconsistencies in the accomplice's testimony and lack of sufficient corroborative evidence regarding planning and deliberation, the court found the Crown failed to prove first-degree murder or conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was found guilty of two counts of second-degree murder.

The applicant, Sharon Cayuga, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of criminal proceedings pending the Attorney General funding defence counsel at legal aid rates.

The court found the application premature because the applicant had not completed the prerequisite steps of formally applying for Legal Aid, being refused, and exhausting all appeals for reconsideration of eligibility.

The application was adjourned, and the conditional stay extended for 30 days, contingent on the applicant taking the appropriate steps with Legal Aid.

The applicant was charged with drug offences following a police search of an alleged commercial cannabis dispensary.

The police executed the search warrant using a dynamic, no-knock entry without justification.

Following the seizure of significant quantities of cannabis and cash, the police failed to file a Report to a Justice for over 17 months.

Additionally, the police failed to reiterate the applicant's right to counsel when she was faced with an additional, more serious charge.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the applicant's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the police misconduct warranted the exclusion of all seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

This is a mandatory 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The court addresses the onus at such reviews, distinguishing between cases where an initial bail hearing was held (no onus on either party) and where none was held (onus reverts to Crown/accused as per s. 515).

The court also clarifies the appropriate procedures and scope of s. 525 reviews, emphasizing they are not de novo bail hearings and that the Palmer/St-Cloud due diligence and relevance criteria for new evidence still apply.

The applicant sought release based on a new surety plan, but the court found it did not constitute a material change in circumstances and dismissed the application, finding continued detention justified.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of two counts of aggravated assault as a party to a planned shooting in downtown St. Catharines that injured the intended target and five innocent bystanders.

The Crown sought a 15-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding the offender's moral blameworthiness high despite his non-shooter status.

After applying the Bellissimo range, considering mitigating factors, and applying credits for totality, Duncan, and Summers, the court imposed a net sentence of 5 years in a federal penitentiary.

The accused, Jiapeng Wu, was charged with second-degree murder.

The central issue at trial was whether he was a party to the murder under s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code, specifically if he subjectively knew that murder was a probable consequence of the planned robbery.

The Crown argued that the accused orchestrated the violent robbery and foresaw the probable use of a firearm and murder.

The defence contended that the accused only intended robbery, not murder.

The court found the Crown's principal witness credible despite prior inconsistencies.

Considering the accused's history of violent currency exchange robberies, his role as organizer, his arming of accomplices with loaded handguns, and his post-offence conduct, the court concluded that the accused subjectively knew murder was a probable consequence.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

The accused, charged with drug and firearms offences following a traffic stop, brought an application for the production of police records relating to the arresting officers' prior traffic stops and training materials.

The accused argued the records were relevant to an anticipated Charter challenge alleging racial profiling and an unlawful search.

The court dismissed the application, finding the records were neither first-party disclosure as they were not fruits of the investigation, nor subject to third-party production as the accused failed to establish their likely relevance beyond mere speculation.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found over 280 grams of cocaine and crack cocaine in his residence.

The Crown sought a 3.5-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day, citing collateral immigration consequences.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, finding the commercial nature and large quantity of drugs warranted a penitentiary term to address denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to two years in a federal penitentiary.

The plaintiff in a defamation action brought a motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, to strike the defendant's jury notice and convert the action to the Simplified Procedure.

The action arose from Facebook posts made by the self-represented defendant accusing the plaintiff, a family law lawyer, of child abuse and unethical conduct.

The court dismissed the request for summary judgment, finding that credibility issues required a trial.

However, the court granted the motion to strike the jury notice, noting the defendant's intention to call numerous irrelevant witnesses and the likelihood that a jury trial would be unnecessarily protracted and prejudicial.

The action was converted to a judge-alone trial under the Simplified Procedure.

The applicants sought an order compelling Martin & Hillyer Associates to produce an unredacted adverse costs insurance policy.

Martin & Hillyer had provided a partially redacted copy, claiming privilege and confidentiality over certain portions.

The court found that the redacted portions were neither privileged nor confidential, as the policy contained generic wording common to such contracts and did not include solicitor-client communications or litigation strategy.

The court emphasized that the entire policy was relevant for proper contractual interpretation.

The application for production was granted.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to enforce repayment of a $250,000 loan agreement.

The defendant opposed, arguing the loan was modified by oral agreements and that the plaintiff's son had diverted the wood flooring intended as security.

The defendant also issued a counterclaim against the plaintiff, his son, and related corporate entities.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues were inextricably connected to the counterclaim and that a trial was required to resolve complex factual disputes and credibility issues.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, and related weapons offences after shooting a victim during a drug robbery.

The Crown sought a 13-year global sentence, while the defence argued for significant mitigation due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions and the offender's lived experience with anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced to 13 years for totality, and further mitigated to 11 years to account for Duncan and Morris factors.

After applying Summers credit for pre-sentence custody, the offender was sentenced to 51 months in a federal penitentiary.

The appellant, Omer Strickland, appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and his sentence of six months incarceration.

The appeal against conviction was based on the trial judge's alleged failure to provide sufficient assistance to him as a self-represented accused.

The appeal against sentence argued that the sentence was unfit, minimizing rehabilitative potential, lack of prior record, and remorse.

The court dismissed both appeals, finding that the trial judge provided adequate assistance within judicial limits and that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the aggravating factors.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash a committal order made by a preliminary inquiry judge.

The preliminary inquiry judge had admitted the complainant's written statement under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code and denied the applicant's request to cross-examine the complainant under s. 540(9).

The Superior Court found that while the admission of the statement was an evidentiary error, it was not jurisdictional.

However, the blanket denial of cross-examination on the sole piece of evidence forming the Crown's case amounted to a breach of natural justice and a jurisdictional error.

The certiorari application was granted, and the matter was remitted for a new preliminary inquiry.

The offender, Pitchou Kanyanga, pleaded guilty to procuring a person to offer sexual services for consideration, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, and advertising sexual services.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the defence requested a three-year sentence with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, aiming for a time-served disposition.

The court found the offender's conduct to be at the lower end of the exploitative scale compared to other cases.

Considering aggravating factors such as a lengthy criminal record and possession of a firearm, and mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, difficult upbringing, and strong family support, the court initially warranted a four-year imprisonment.

However, significant "Duncan credit" was applied due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (lockdowns, triple-bunking), resulting in a net sentence of one day in jail, effectively time served.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA sample order.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter after fatally shooting a trespasser who was breaking into his truck in the middle of the night.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 4 years.

The court assessed the offender's moral blameworthiness, noting the use of a loaded firearm with an after-market turkey choke, but also considering the offender's lack of criminal record, strong community support, and genuine remorse.

The court rejected the defence's characterization of the incident as 'near self-defence' but acknowledged the offender's perceived lack of alternatives.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment.