Anthony Gibbs Bryant

This decision addresses a motion for directions regarding the transportation and housing of an in-custody accused, Matthew McQuarrie, during his murder trial in Owen Sound, Ontario.

The court details the significant logistical and fairness challenges posed by the closure of the local jail, resulting in daily lengthy and inhumane commutes from the Central North Correctional Centre.

The ruling describes the evidence on transportation, alternate housing, and access to disclosure, and ultimately orders exceptional accommodations to ensure the accused’s right to a fair trial, including direct transport, access to disclosure, and use of technology.

The court sentenced K. M. Thauhidul Islam for the attempted murder of his wife, as well as for prior assaults and breaches of court orders.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court imposed a global sentence of 17 years, less pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and non-communication order.

The appellant, Nicholas Johnson, appealed his conviction for second-degree murder, challenging the trial judge's refusal to qualify a proposed expert mid-trial.

The expert was intended to recover access to the appellant's Google account via his cell phone to obtain location services data.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary decision, noting the lack of a proper application and insufficient evidence regarding the expert's qualifications or the admissibility of the potential data.

K.M. Thauhidul Islam faced charges of assault, uttering threats to cause death, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and attempted murder against his wife, Farzana Iqbal.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, accepting the complainant's testimony over the defendant's inconsistent account.

The judge determined that the defendant had the specific intent to kill for the attempted murder charge, based on the weapon used, the location and severity of the blows, and the direct threats uttered during the attack.

Matthew McQuarrie, charged with first-degree murder, discharged his third lawyer and intended to self-represent.

The Crown applied for orders appointing amicus curiae and counsel under s. 486.3 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the deceased's parents.

The court granted both applications, appointing the accused's former counsel, Anthony Bryant, as amicus with an expanded adversarial mandate, and counsel under s. 486.3 for specific cross-examinations, with the possibility of expansion.

The decision addressed the suitability of former counsel as amicus and the scope of their duties, emphasizing the need to protect the court process and ensure trial fairness given the accused's behaviour and the complexity of the case, while avoiding trial adjournment.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder, attempted murder, and firearms offences following a public shooting at a shopping mall.

The offender fired at an intended target but missed, instead striking and killing an innocent bystander.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years for the murder, alongside concurrent sentences of 12 years for attempted murder and 8 years for the firearms offences.

The court rejected the application of the rule against multiple convictions for the attempted murder charge, noting the offences involved different victims.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter and trafficking in cocaine and fentanyl after selling drugs to a vulnerable individual who subsequently died of a fentanyl overdose.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence argued for 4 to 6 years.

The court emphasized the extreme danger of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and deterrence, rejecting the argument that the victim's autonomous choice to ingest the drugs mitigated the offender's moral blameworthiness.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years in prison, comprising 8 years for manslaughter, 30 months concurrent for fentanyl trafficking, and 1 year concurrent for cocaine trafficking.

Lawrence Caines was found not criminally responsible (NCRMD) for the first-degree murder of his brother due to a mental disorder (bipolar 1 disorder with mania and psychosis).

The Crown applied to designate Caines as a "high-risk accused" (HRA) under s. 672.64 of the Criminal Code, arguing there was a substantial likelihood of future violence or that the offence's brutal nature indicated such a risk.

The defence opposed, citing insufficient evidence of repetitive violent behaviour and lack of expert opinion on future dangerousness.

The court dismissed the HRA application, finding the Crown had not met the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities, noting the accused's current amenability to treatment and improved insight.

The matter was referred to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

The accused, Kahli Johnson-Phillips and Shanice Wynter, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking a stay of charges for first-degree murder and other offences due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating total delay, subtracting defence delay, and considering exceptional circumstances, particularly the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that after deducting defence-attributable delays and pandemic-related delays, the net delay for both accused was below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court also determined the case to be particularly complex, which would justify a delay above the ceiling if necessary.

Consequently, the s. 11(b) applications were dismissed.

This criminal trial concerned George Brazier, who faced charges of manslaughter and three counts of trafficking in controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine).

The Crown alleged that Brazier sold fentanyl and cocaine to James Glover, who subsequently died from a fentanyl overdose.

The court found Brazier guilty of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine, and of unlawful act manslaughter, concluding that his conduct in supplying the fentanyl significantly contributed to Glover's death and was objectively dangerous.

The charge of trafficking heroin was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

The defence applied under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting specific challenge for cause questions, arguing a reasonable possibility of juror partiality.

The issues not on consent were the need for a question regarding partiality towards police (a Barnes question) and who would ask the questions.

The court allowed the police partiality question, finding that evidence of systemic racism within the Peel Regional Police Service and related media coverage created a realistic potential for partiality among prospective jurors.

The court also ruled that the trial judge, rather than counsel, would ask all challenge for cause questions to emphasize the court's impartiality and the importance of a fair trial.

The accused, Shanice Wynter, brought an application for an order allowing her counsel to make an opening address immediately after the Crown’s opening address in a joint criminal trial for first-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown opposed, and the co-accused did not join the application.

The court, exercising judicial discretion, determined that an early defence opening is only permissible in special or exceptional circumstances.

Considering factors such as the trial's length and complexity, but also the "all or none" approach for co-accused in joint trials, the court dismissed the application.

It concluded that special or exceptional circumstances were not present and that following the procedure outlined in s. 651 of the Criminal Code was the fairest course of action.

The applicant, Menna Nasr, sought an order for state-funded counsel (a Rowbotham order) after being denied legal aid and exhausting all available remedies.

She faced serious criminal charges in two jurisdictions, including dangerous driving, flight from police, and impaired operation, with potential for significant jail time.

The court applied the three-part Rowbotham test, finding that Nasr was financially unable to retain private counsel and that counsel was essential for her to receive a fair trial, given the seriousness and complexity of the charges, the voluminous disclosure, the number of witnesses, and her significant mental health diagnoses affecting her ability to participate meaningfully in her defence.

The application was granted, with a requirement for the applicant to contribute $2000 towards her counsel's funding.

Cory Trunks applied under the Criminal Code for access to $167,000 in seized cash to cover his legal expenses for defence against charges including drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that Trunks had other available means.

The court found that while Trunks had an interest in the funds, he failed to demonstrate that he had no other assets or means, specifically noting that he had been granted Legal Aid.

The application was dismissed, as the availability of state-funded legal assistance meant Trunks was not in the narrow category of accused persons needing access to potentially forfeited funds.

In a pre-trial Charter motion arising from a first degree murder prosecution, the accused sought exclusion of evidence obtained from cell phones seized from a vehicle and from a residence.

The court held that defects in the initial Nissan warrants and the continuation of the search after withdrawal of charges against a third party did not establish a breach, but the delayed return to justice and prolonged detention of the phones without judicial authorization did breach s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court nevertheless admitted the Nissan phone evidence because the impact of the reporting breach was negligible and the evidence was highly important to adjudication on the merits.

In contrast, the residential warrant was facially invalid, the seizure of a phone from a bedroom bag was not authorized by the warrant, s. 489(1), plain view, or search incident to arrest, and the resulting picture and video were excluded under s. 24(2).

This ruling addresses an application by an accused, Ms. Wynter, to be off-screen during pre-trial motions in a first-degree murder trial, specifically during motions where she conceded she lacked standing.

The request was based on a misunderstanding of attendance requirements and employment obligations.

The court dismissed the application, emphasizing the fundamental right and duty of an accused to be present throughout their trial, even in ancillary proceedings where their interests may be affected, and that economic hardship must be substantial to justify absence.

The Crown applied under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code to adduce the preliminary inquiry testimony of a key witness who was deemed too ill to testify at trial due to severe mental health challenges triggered by her previous testimony.

The accused opposed the application, arguing lack of full opportunity to cross-examine and trial unfairness due to new evidence.

The court found the witness was too ill to testify, the defence had a full opportunity to cross-examine her at the preliminary inquiry, and the admission of the evidence would not render the trial unfair.

The application was granted, and the transcripts were admitted as substantive evidence.

The accused, charged with manslaughter and drug trafficking, brought an O'Connor application seeking production of a key Crown witness's psychiatric hospital records.

The Crown had previously applied under s. 715 of the Criminal Code to admit the witness's preliminary hearing testimony, arguing she was presently too mentally ill to testify at trial.

The defence argued the hospital records were likely relevant to assessing her mental health before the preliminary hearing.

The court dismissed the application at the first stage, finding the records from early 2020 were too remote to be likely relevant to her present state of health or to whether the preliminary hearing triggered her recent mental health decline.

During a trial for drug trafficking and manslaughter, the Crown brought an O'Connor application to disclose the medical records of a fragile witness.

The Crown sought to adduce the witness's preliminary hearing transcript in lieu of oral testimony.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor procedure to the second tranche of subpoenaed medical records.

Finding the records relevant to the witness's ability to testify, the court ordered the disclosure of the psychiatric assessment portions with appropriate redactions to protect the witness's privacy.

The Crown brought an O'Connor application to obtain the medical records of a key witness who claimed she was medically unstable to testify at the accused's trial for drug trafficking and manslaughter.

The court found the stage one threshold was easily met, as the records were likely relevant to the witness's mental health and ability to testify.

After reviewing the first tranche of records at stage two, the court ordered the release of relevant portions to counsel, subject to redactions for non-relevant personal and medical information, balancing the public interest in the search for truth against the witness's privacy interests.