Anne E. London-Weinstein

The applicant sought a review of a bail judge's decision detaining him on secondary and tertiary grounds for charges relating to domestic violence and firearms.

The reviewing judge found the bail judge erred in law by faulting the proposed sureties for not knowing about unproven allegations, effectively violating the presumption of innocence, and by failing to consider the strength of the Crown's case.

Conducting a de novo hearing, the reviewing judge found the proposed sureties were suitable and that the secondary and tertiary grounds did not justify detention.

The applicant was ordered released on bail.

Following a conviction for mischief, the Crown applied for a psychiatric assessment under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code to determine if the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder.

The self-represented accused opposed the application.

The court reviewed a previous psychiatric report and the accused's trial testimony, which demonstrated persistent persecutory delusions.

The court found reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility and ordered the assessment.

In advance of a jury trial on attempted arson and mischief charges, the self-represented accused brought numerous omnibus pretrial motions seeking a wide range of procedural, evidentiary, Charter, disclosure, and institutional remedies.

The court dismissed the majority summarily as irrelevant to the issues for trial, including motions concerning judicial notice of geopolitical matters, disclosure requests untethered to material issues, adjournment, phone-access relief, police record correction requests, and proposed evidence concerning a prior arson conviction.

The court deferred the air of reality assessment on the proposed self defence theory under s. 34 of the Criminal Code until the close of the evidence, while expressing doubt that the alleged conduct could be found objectively reasonable.

The accused's motion to discharge amicus curiae had already been denied in separate reasons, and his application to ask a challenge for cause question based on autism spectrum status was granted in separate reasons.

The self-represented accused, who is on the autism spectrum, sought to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on potential prejudice against persons on the autism spectrum.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Chouhan, the trial judge permitted the challenge, finding a reasonable possibility that bias or prejudicial attitudes exist in the community.

The judge also exercised her discretion to allow the accused and the Crown to alternate posing the challenge for cause questions to the jurors, departing from the general rule that the trial judge should pose the questions, in order to maintain the appearance of objective neutrality and accommodate the accused's strong preference.

The Crown sought to establish the voluntariness of statements made by the accused to police during a neighbourhood canvass and a subsequent interview at the police station.

The accused argued she was a suspect at the time of the interview and should have been cautioned.

The court found that, viewed objectively, the police did not have sufficient information to regard the accused as a suspect at that early stage of the investigation.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the lack of threats, promises, or oppression, the court ruled the statements were voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order on charges of robbery and failing to comply with a release order.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the proposed surety's reduced work hours and the applicant's experience in custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying the Palmer criteria flexibly, the court admitted the fresh evidence and conducted a hearing de novo.

The court concluded that with two strong sureties and a GPS monitoring bracelet, the risk of re-offending or interfering with the administration of justice was sufficiently mitigated.

The applicant was granted bail on strict house arrest conditions.

In a murder trial where the Crown alleged the two accused killed the victim (the wife of one of the accused) to continue their affair, the Crown sought to introduce discreditable conduct evidence and hearsay statements of the deceased.

The court admitted statements made by the accused to a psychic regarding their hatred for the victim, finding the probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect in a judge-alone trial.

The court also admitted the deceased's hearsay statements to a friend that she would not divorce, under the present state of mind exception, but excluded other statements regarding financial control and taking the children due to threshold reliability concerns.

During a joint trial for first-degree murder, the accused sought to introduce evidence of his co-accused's prior discreditable conduct involving knife attacks against her former spouse.

The accused argued this evidence supported his defence that the co-accused acted alone.

The co-accused opposed the admission, arguing it was highly prejudicial.

The court admitted the evidence, finding it sufficiently probative to the accused's right to make full answer and defence, and held that any prejudice to the co-accused could be mitigated by a limiting instruction in a judge-alone trial.

The accused, Bhupinderpal Gill and Gurpreet Ronald, were jointly charged with the first degree murder of Jagtar Gill, the wife of Bhupinderpal Gill.

The Crown alleged that the accused, who were engaged in an extramarital affair, planned and executed the murder so they could be together.

Jagtar Gill was found bludgeoned and stabbed to death in her home while recovering from hernia surgery.

The court found that Gurpreet Ronald entered the home and carried out the physical killing, while Bhupinderpal Gill aided in the murder by planning it, preparing the murder weapon, ensuring the victim was alone, and subsequently disposing of incriminating evidence.

Both accused were found guilty of first degree murder.

The accused was charged with robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery arising from a bitcoin transaction.

The complainant alleged that the accused set him up to be robbed by an unknown third party.

The court applied the W.(D) framework to assess credibility and accepted the accused's evidence that he was not involved in the robbery.

The court also found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, leaving a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the resumption of unsupervised parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility for the parties' eight-year-old child, having not seen the child since December 2020.

The respondent mother opposed unsupervised time, citing COVID-19 concerns and the father's past physical abuse of the child when she was an infant.

The court found that while the past abuse was highly concerning, the mother had previously allowed unsupervised access knowing of the abuse, and the passage of eight years mitigated the risk.

The court ordered unsupervised parenting time in accordance with a 2017 mediation agreement, joint decision-making with the mother having final say, and interim child support.

The applicant father brought a motion for primary residence and temporary decision-making authority for the parties' 16-month-old child, as well as supervised parenting time for the respondent mother.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking primary residence and unsupervised parenting time.

Both parties alleged abusive conduct and mental health issues against the other.

The court found cogent evidence that the child's safety was at risk in the mother's unsupervised care due to her mental health struggles, including suicidal ideation and blackouts.

The court granted the father temporary primary residence and final decision-making authority, and ordered the mother to have supervised parenting time and undergo a psychological evaluation.

The accused was convicted of possession of fentanyl and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

At the time of the offences, the accused was on full parole for prior drug trafficking convictions.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence, while the defence sought 7 years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the accused's criminal record and parole status against mitigating factors, including strong family support, rehabilitative efforts, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment, less 777 days of pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant, Ali Fahad, appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the Crown proved a lawful Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, given the absence of evidence regarding the exact words used by the officer and errors in police notes and advice.

The court found that while exact words are not always necessary, the absence of evidence of the demand's content, coupled with the officer's errors, rendered the conviction unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Mr. Mtonga on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal raised three issues: misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, insufficient reasons for reasonable doubt, and application of an incorrect mens rea test.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not misapprehend the officer's evidence, provided sufficient reasons by considering the accused's request for a "last chance" to provide a sample, and correctly applied the subjective mens rea test requiring proof of intent to refuse or fail on purpose.

The court emphasized that the accused's request for a further attempt, combined with incomplete officer notes, created a reasonable doubt as to his intent, distinguishing the case from others where such a request was absent.

The respondent father brought a motion for contempt against the applicant mother for withholding access to their two teenage daughters.

The mother had withheld access following allegations of physical abuse by the father, which were investigated by CAS and OPP.

The court previously ordered access to resume in Ottawa and for the family to engage in reunification counselling.

The father, now unemployed, requested that access resume in Bracebridge as per the final order, citing financial inability to travel to Ottawa.

The court declined to order the children to travel to Bracebridge, finding it not in their best interests at this early stage of reunification counselling.

The contempt motion was adjourned to be dealt with at the Motion to Change.

Michael Kilbride, charged with drug trafficking, sought a review of his detention order under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being initially detained on primary and secondary grounds.

The court considered a new bail plan involving residential drug addiction treatment at the Salvation Army's Anchorage program.

The judge found that the comprehensive program, coupled with support from a CMHA worker and diligent counsel, mitigated the primary and secondary ground concerns, including the risk of reoffence and failure to appear.

The court also considered the applicant's asthma and the COVID-19 pandemic as factors favoring release, concluding that continued detention was not necessary.

The moving party father brought a motion for contempt against the responding party mother for withholding access to their two children since June 2020.

The mother had withheld access following allegations of physical abuse made by one of the children, which led to child protection and police investigations that concluded without charges.

The children, aged 14 and 12, expressed a strong reluctance to travel 10 hours for access visits at the father's residence.

The court deferred the contempt motion for 90 days and ordered immediate reunification counselling.

The court also ordered interim access to take place in the children's home city for 10 hours every other weekend.

The applicants, charged with firearms and drug offences, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

They argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe the firearm would be located at the specified addresses.

The court found the ITO lacked any case-specific evidence linking the firearm to the residences, rendering the search a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the serious state conduct of searching a private residence based on mere speculation outweighed the societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused, a 50-year-old Aboriginal man with severe medical vulnerabilities, pleaded guilty to possession of percocets for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 18 months to two years less a day in custody, while the defence sought a one-year conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from Gladue and Sharma, and taking judicial notice of the heightened risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic to incarcerated individuals, the court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate.

The accused was sentenced to a 12-month conditional sentence, including 45 days of house arrest, along with a weapons prohibition subject to a sustenance hunting exemption.