Andrew Vaughan

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the Crown's application for a mental health assessment under s. 16 of the Criminal Code for Lynda Newth, who pled guilty to assault and related offences.

Despite a history of mental health struggles and serious prior assaults, the court found no reasonable grounds to doubt her criminal responsibility at the time of the November 5, 2024 assault.

The decision emphasized the high threshold for ordering such assessments, the importance of evidence linking mental disorder to the offence, and the need for vigilance in cases involving Indigenous accused to avoid unfair disadvantage.

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences, including kidnapping, sexual assault with a weapon, and uttering threats, against two sex workers in 1986.

The accused fled to the United States shortly after being charged and was not returned to Canada until 2015.

At trial, the Crown successfully applied to admit similar fact evidence across the counts.

The accused brought an application to stay the proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing his s. 7 rights were breached due to the loss of the original police files and evidence over the 35-year delay.

The court found a s. 7 breach regarding some lost evidence but declined to order a stay, noting the accused's own flight caused the delay.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts, staying one count of unlawful confinement under the Kienapple principle.

Zephaniah Bogle pleaded guilty to possession of a restricted firearm and possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the combination of drugs and a loaded firearm, and mitigating factors such as his early guilty plea, lack of prior record, youth, positive pre-sentence report, and rehabilitative efforts while on stringent bail conditions.

The Crown sought a 3-year sentence, while the defence sought 2 years less a day.

The judge imposed a total sentence of 27 months (2 years for the firearm, 3 months consecutive for cocaine), less 222 days for pre-trial custody and house arrest credit, resulting in 1 year and 233 days of remaining custody, followed by 2 years of probation.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after border services officers discovered a body pack during a secondary inspection at the airport.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence, arguing she was unlawfully detained during questioning and that officers violated her right to counsel by conducting a search incident to arrest before she could speak with duty counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding the initial questioning was routine screening and that officers were not required to hold off on a search incident to arrest while awaiting a call back from duty counsel.

The accused was found guilty.

Two young persons were convicted of robbery simpliciter following a trial.

They were among a group that forcefully entered a hotel room in Oakville and robbed an escort of her personal belongings.

The young persons' culpability was grounded in party liability.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to six months followed by probation, while defence counsel sought probation with conditions.

The court found the offence constituted a violent offence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act due to psychological bodily harm to the victim and the home invasion nature of the crime.

However, considering the young persons' lack of prior records, their conduct while on bail, educational achievements, supportive family circumstances, and the mitigating factor of adult influence, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of two years' probation with conditions including community service.

The Crown sought certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's decision discharging the accused on firearm possession charges and to compel committal for trial.

The preliminary inquiry judge found no evidence of possession, disregarding circumstantial evidence that the accused reached into the area where the firearm was found.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider all the evidence and by improperly weighing it, thereby exceeding the limited role of a preliminary inquiry judge.

The application was allowed, the discharge quashed, and the matter remitted with a direction to commit the accused for trial.

Two accused were jointly charged with human trafficking offences, including unlawfully recruiting and exercising control over a young woman for the purpose of exploiting her in the sex trade, receiving financial benefits from sexual services, advertising sexual services, procuring for sexual services, and unlawful confinement.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a young mother with a history of drug use and involvement with child protective services.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility, arguing she fabricated allegations to avoid losing custody of her child.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable despite inconsistencies noted by initial police responders.

The court convicted both accused of human trafficking and procurement offences, finding they exercised control and direction over the complainant through threats and coercion, causing her to provide sexual services against her will.

One accused was also convicted of receiving financial benefits from the offences and breaching probation conditions.

During a trial for multiple counts of kidnapping, robbery, and firearm offences related to cargo thefts, the Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across counts to prove identity.

The offences were alleged to have been committed by a rotating group of individuals.

The court applied the test from Perrier, finding that the offences were strikingly similar and that there was 'some evidence' linking each accused to the specific offences with which they were charged, primarily through cell phone tower data showing symmetry of movement.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect and ruled the similar fact evidence admissible across counts.

This ruling addresses the admissibility and use of association evidence as circumstantial evidence of identity in a multi-accused criminal trial involving charges of theft, kidnapping, and robbery.

The Crown sought to use evidence of association between the accused and others, combined with cell phone proximity data, to establish identity in joint enterprise crimes.

The accused argued against this, citing concerns about 'guilt by association.' The court permitted the use of certain categories of association evidence (phone contact, contact information, surveillance observations, witness testimony) for the limited purpose of considering cell phone patterns in the context of joint enterprise crimes, provided careful jury instructions were given to prevent 'guilt by association.' However, the court disallowed the use of 'mirrored phone movements' across different counts and the circumstances of collective arrests as association evidence, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

The accused in a 29-count indictment for theft, kidnapping, robbery, and possession of property obtained by crime brought directed verdict applications at the close of the Crown's case.

The applications were dismissed, with the court finding that the Crown's circumstantial evidence, particularly cell phone data showing symmetrical movement and association between the accused, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt for each count.

The court clarified the legal test for directed verdicts in circumstantial cases, rejecting the defence's argument that evidence must be inconsistent with any other explanation.

During a complex criminal trial involving multiple kidnappings and robberies, the Crown sought to introduce PowerPoint presentations as demonstrative aids to summarize voluminous cell phone records and plot cell tower locations.

The defence objected, arguing the presentations were misleading and distorted the evidence.

The court initially excluded the proposed presentations, finding they were confusing, assumed facts in dispute, and acted as a roadmap for the Crown's case.

However, the court subsequently admitted revised presentations that focused on individual phones, accurately distilled the records without assuming disputed facts, and were accompanied by cautionary instructions to the jury.

The accused brought pre-trial Charter motions seeking to exclude evidence from two separate police interactions.

For a July 2009 traffic stop, the court found the stop was unlawful due to a lack of credible police evidence regarding the reason for the stop, resulting in an arbitrary detention.

The evidence from that stop was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to serious state conduct involving a failure to take notes.

For an August 2009 interaction where police approached a parked vehicle in a high-crime area, the court found no detention occurred, as the accused was free to leave and voluntarily provided his identification.

Consequently, there were no s. 8 or s. 10(b) breaches, and the accused's statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

During pre‑trial proceedings on a multi‑count indictment involving robbery, firearms, kidnapping, and related offences, the court conducted a voluntariness voir dire concerning a police statement made by one of the accused.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary because the accused allegedly did not receive a proper caution or right to counsel, and contended that breaches of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter undermined the accused’s right to silence.

The Crown argued the statement was voluntary and that no inducements, oppression, or improper police conduct occurred.

The court held that the accused had been informed of the right to counsel, had consulted counsel, and understood the right to remain silent.

Considering the totality of the circumstances and the confessions rule, the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was admissible.

In a pre-trial motion, the Crown sought to admit a police statement made by one of the co-accused.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to police inducements, oppression, and trickery during the interrogation.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the police conduct was appropriate, the accused's will was not overborne, and no shocking trickery was used.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The Crown sought to admit a roadside statement made by a vehicle passenger identifying himself to police during a traffic stop.

The defence argued the Crown had not proven the accused was the declarant and that the statement was involuntary because no caution was given.

The court held that for admissibility the Crown need only show “some evidence” that the accused was the declarant, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

On the evidence, identity was established and the statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt because there were no inducements, oppression, or lack of operating mind.

The absence of a caution did not render the statement involuntary where the accused was not detained or suspected of an offence.

In a multi‑accused jury trial involving numerous serious offences including robbery, kidnapping, firearms offences, and conspiracy, the court determined several pre‑trial jury selection issues.

The Crown sought an order empanelling fourteen jurors and selecting two alternate jurors under s. 631 of the Criminal Code due to the expected length and complexity of the trial.

The court granted the application, finding additional jurors advisable to reduce the risk of mistrial if jurors were excused.

The court also permitted a race‑based challenge for cause under s. 638(1)(b) given that the accused were members of visible minority groups, and established appropriate challenge questions referencing potential bias.

Finally, the court ruled that rotating triers would be used and ordered the exclusion of other jurors from the courtroom during the challenge process in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

During a pre‑trial voir dire, the Crown sought to admit two statements made by one accused following separate arrests.

The defence challenged the voluntariness of the second statement given during a police interview after consultation with counsel.

The court reviewed the confession rule and assessed inducements, oppression, operating mind, and the overall interview context.

Although the accused was properly cautioned and treated appropriately before the interview, the officer’s aggressive tone, physical positioning, and comments undermining confidence in defence counsel raised concerns.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, the court found a reasonable doubt about voluntariness and excluded the November 18, 2009 statement while admitting the earlier statement.

A criminal lawyer pleaded guilty to fraud under $5,000 for defrauding his client's sister of $1,000.

The accused falsely represented that he could obtain the dismissal of criminal charges against his client through bribery of police officers.

After the Crown decided to stay the charges, the accused continued the fraudulent scheme, threatening that the case could be reopened if payment was not made.

The court imposed a six-month custodial sentence followed by two years of probation, finding that incarceration was necessary to reflect denunciation and general deterrence given the accused's position of trust as a lawyer and the serious breach of professional integrity.