Anne E. London-Weinstein

The Crown sought to admit two statements made by the accused, who was charged with second-degree murder.

The first statement, made spontaneously to a first-responding officer despite cautions, was found to be voluntary.

The second statement, made to a detective during a formal interview, was excluded.

The court found that the detective's comments—suggesting the accused might not get to tell his story in court and that his integrity was highest during the interview—effectively weaponized the right to silence and constituted an inducement, rendering the statement involuntary.

Sentencing decision following convictions after trial for human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from trafficking, advertising sexual services, sexual assault, assault, and breach of recognizance arising from exploitation of an intimate partner in the sex trade.

The court applied the aggravating-factor framework and tier analysis from trafficking jurisprudence, emphasizing coercive control, appropriation of earnings, sexual violence used as punishment, and the offender’s commercial exploitation of the complainant.

The court accepted significant mitigating factors, including the absence of a prior criminal record, community support, employment history, and rehabilitation prospects.

Applying the totality principle, Summers credit, and limited Downes credit, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years less 90 days, together with DNA, SOIRA, firearms, and no-contact orders.

The accused was convicted of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs (fentanyl and xanax) causing the deaths of two people, and criminal negligence causing death.

The accused crossed the center line at high speed and struck the victims' vehicle head-on.

The court weighed the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence against the accused's significant mitigating factors, including his youth, lack of criminal record, severe childhood trauma that led to his opioid addiction, and his extensive rehabilitation efforts.

The court sentenced the accused to 5 years' imprisonment and imposed a 7-year driving prohibition.

The applicant, charged jointly with two co-accused for human trafficking offences, brought a pre-trial application for severance.

The applicant argued that being tried alongside one of the co-accused, who was also her alleged victimizer in related charges, would cause her further victimization and prevent her from testifying in her own defence.

The court dismissed the application without prejudice, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to establish that a joint trial would work an injustice, while noting that testimonial aids could potentially be utilized to facilitate her evidence.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, relied on stereotypical reasoning, and failed to properly apply the W.D. framework.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred by relying on generalized assumptions about human behaviour—specifically regarding how a victim would act out of guilt or whether parties would cry during consensual sexual activity—to assess credibility, rather than grounding his findings in the evidence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The accused, who is charged with sexually assaulting a deaf woman at a shelter, sought a review of his bail decision, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The accused, who lives with paranoid schizophrenia, proposed a release plan involving supervision by the John Howard Society and living in a rented room.

The court acknowledged the accused's heightened risk of contracting COVID-19 but found the proposed plan lacked adequate supervision.

The application for bail was dismissed, and the accused was detained on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court awarded costs to the defendant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $5,898.75 plus disbursements and HST.

The costs were ordered payable only upon the final resolution of the action by judgment or settlement.

M.M. sought a bail review of a detention order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to COVID-19 and his underlying health conditions.

The applicant, charged with multiple drug trafficking and compliance offences, proposed a release plan with a surety (K.D.) and GPS monitoring.

The court accepted the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change but ultimately found the proposed surety unsuitable due to a shared history of drug addiction with the applicant, which jeopardized the applicant's sobriety and the plan's ability to mitigate secondary grounds risks.

The court also considered the strong Crown's case and the public's confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

Derek Robertson was found guilty of fraud against two couples, the Demers and Langfords, for failing to complete architectural drawings for new homes and misusing funds intended for third-party fees.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victims' age and the financial and emotional impact, and mitigating factors, such as Robertson's lack of criminal record, significant mental health issues (pervasive depression), and the unsophisticated nature of the fraud.

The Crown sought 6-9 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 24 months probation and restitution orders of $5,000 each to Mr. Demers and Mr. Langford, emphasizing rehabilitation, the principle of restraint against jail, and the offender's limited means and mental health challenges.

The applicant, D.M., sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, citing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the proposed use of a GPS monitoring bracelet.

D.M. was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference and had a history of failing to comply with release conditions.

The court acknowledged COVID-19 as a material change but found the proposed surety, Ms. A.T., lacked sufficient judgment and that the applicant had a history of not adhering to surety directives.

The application for release was denied on both secondary and tertiary grounds, concluding that detention was necessary to prevent further offenses and maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the elevated health risks posed by COVID-19 in custody.

The applicant, M.K., sought a review of his detention order, which was initially based on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The bail review was conducted via audio conference due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

M.K. faced serious drug trafficking and firearm charges, had a criminal record including prior trafficking convictions and failures to comply with court orders, and was on probation and a firearms prohibition at the time of his arrest.

A new bail plan was proposed, including M.K.'s mother as an additional surety and a GPS monitoring bracelet.

The court found a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo hearing.

While the primary and secondary grounds were mitigated by the strengthened bail plan and strong family ties, the tertiary grounds initially favored detention due to the seriousness of the charges and M.K.'s criminal history.

However, M.K.'s specific health vulnerability (prior spontaneous pneumothorax) combined with the heightened risk of COVID-19 transmission in custodial facilities, and the robust bail plan, ultimately led the court to grant release.

The court emphasized that absent M.K.'s particular health vulnerability, the tertiary grounds would have mandated detention.

The accused, Jormond Fraser, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, following two previous detention orders.

The application cited a material change in circumstances due to a new surety, the proposed use of a GPS monitoring bracelet, and the elevated health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic within the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, particularly given Fraser's history of leukemia.

The court acknowledged the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change allowing a de novo hearing and a relevant factor in assessing the tertiary ground for bail.

However, the proposed surety was deemed unsuitable due to a past failure to report a breach of conditions and current mental health challenges, raising concerns about her ability to supervise effectively.

Despite the increased risk of infection in custody and Fraser's expressed fear, his extensive criminal record, including numerous convictions for failing to comply with court orders and violence against women, led the court to conclude that the proposed bail plan was insufficient to manage the substantial likelihood of him committing further offences.

The bail review was dismissed, and the detention order remained undisturbed.

The applicant, Brandon Cain, sought a review of a detention order.

The court found that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo bail review hearing under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

Considering the elevated risk of infection in the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre (OCDC), the applicant's prior liver injury, and a strengthened bail plan including a GPS monitoring bracelet and a surety, the court was satisfied that both secondary and tertiary grounds for detention could be overcome.

Despite the serious nature of the charges (violent assault, firearm offences, forcible confinement) and a prior breach of release conditions, the court granted the applicant's release on strict house arrest conditions.

The accused, M.L., was charged with multiple counts of assault, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault, and breach of a no-contact recognizance.

The trial, which proceeded without a jury for 10 days, focused heavily on credibility issues, with the court finding significant inconsistencies and unreliability in the testimony of both the complainant and the accused.

The court applied established principles for credibility assessment, noting that a criminal trial is not a credibility contest.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's guilt on the assault and sexual assault charges, leading to acquittals on those counts.

However, the accused was found guilty of breaching his recognizance due to phone calls made to the complainant while under a no-contact order.

Siavash Norouzian was charged with heroin trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an undercover officer, Detective Constable Gazey, and Sergeant Sutton.

However, forensic phone data contradicted Detective Constable Gazey's sworn evidence regarding phone calls, voice identification, and text messages, leading the court to find him not credible and unreliable.

Sergeant Sutton's evidence was also deemed unreliable due to lost notes and delayed report writing.

The court emphasized the importance of reliable forensic evidence in challenging police testimony and the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given the significant credibility and reliability issues with the key Crown witnesses, Mr. Norouzian was acquitted of all charges.

The plaintiff brought a motion to lift a stay of execution on a prior summary judgment order, which had been imposed to allow cross-claims between the defendants.

The stay was lifted because one defendant, Andrew Maracle, entered bankruptcy proceedings, making a cross-claim by the other defendant, Andrew Clifford Miracle, impossible.

The court awarded prejudgment interest at 28.82% on the principal amount of $69,417.37, totaling $31,625.37.

Post-judgment interest was also ordered.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a partial indemnity basis for $8,669.93, considering the defendants' failure to accept settlement offers and lack of their own offers.

The court clarified that Andrew Clifford Miracle remained liable as a partner despite Andrew Maracle's bankruptcy.

This is a status review application by the Children’s Aid Society seeking a custody order for three children in favour of their maternal grandmother, with access to the mother at the grandmother's sole discretion.

The mother sought the children's return under a voluntary service agreement or supervision order.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's pattern of engaging in violent relationships, domestic violence occurring in front of the children, and drug use.

The court dismissed the mother's plan and granted custody to the maternal grandmother, finding it to be in the children's best interests, emphasizing stability, safety, and the grandmother's ability to meet their needs.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and domestic assault offences, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity.

The accused sought to introduce evidence of rough sex, belittling, and post-offence sexual encounters to challenge the complainant's credibility and character.

The court dismissed most of the application, finding the proposed evidence relied on stereotypical reasoning and lacked significant probative value.

However, the court permitted a narrow body of rebuttal evidence regarding the complainant belittling the accused's sexual performance, but only if the Crown first leads the complainant's statement that the accused always took sexual advantage of her.

The accused sought a review of a detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following his arrest for firearms and drug offences.

He had been detained on the tertiary ground.

The accused presented fresh evidence regarding his willingness to live with his estranged father under strict house arrest conditions, which the court accepted as a material change in circumstances under the Palmer test.

The court found that a reasonable person's confidence in the administration of justice would not be undermined by his release, given the strict bail plan including a $30,000 bond, GPS ankle monitoring, and a capable surety.

The detention order was vacated and the accused was released.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel from the record in a manslaughter retrial due to a potential conflict of interest.

Defence counsel had previously represented two key Crown witnesses, one of whom was convicted as the shooter in the underlying incident.

Despite the respondent's fundamental right to counsel of choice and proposed waivers, the court found that the potential need to cross-examine former clients created an appearance of unfairness.

The application was granted to protect public confidence in the administration of justice.