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.

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.

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 appellant was convicted of three counts of sexual offences against a single complainant.

The appeal addresses multiple errors arising from jury management during deliberations and the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The jury reported deliberation impasses, requested materials and evidence playbacks, and one juror indicated unavailability beyond the third day.

The trial judge provided transcripts of portions of the appellant's police interview used in cross-examination rather than replaying the cross-examination itself, failed to replay the appellant's testimony after the jury withdrew their request, exhorted the jury twice without clarifying that no time limit existed on deliberations, and failed to adequately relate the evidence to the defence position in the charge.

The cumulative effect of these errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The offenders, Theo Cleland and Hussein Karshe, were convicted of aggravated assault following a jury trial.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious group attack and injuries to the victim, and mitigating factors, such as their lack of criminal records, youth, and rehabilitative efforts.

The primary sentencing objectives were denunciation and deterrence, balanced with rehabilitation and restraint.

The court imposed intermittent sentences of 90 days incarceration, followed by three years of probation with conditions including community service, counselling, and restitution for uninsured expenses.

This decision addresses the judge's proposed opening comments and jury selection procedures for a first-degree murder trial.

The judge adopted several suggestions from counsel, including referring to the accused as "defendant" and strongly emphasizing that jurors must not conduct external research.

The judge also accepted defence counsel's request to defer their opening statement and for potential jurors with knowledge of the case to submit written notes.

The judge declined to remove all references to the elements of the offence from the opening comments, affirming their general inclusion.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assaulting a peace officer causing bodily harm contrary to section 270.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The assault occurred at the Oshawa Courthouse when the defendant, extremely intoxicated and angry, caused a disturbance and bit a court constable on the forearm, breaking the skin and causing a permanent scar.

The Crown sought a six-month custodial sentence emphasizing deterrence and denunciation.

The defence sought an intermittent sentence or conditional sentence, highlighting the defendant's serious alcohol addiction, childhood trauma, and post-arrest rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence with house arrest on the Electronic Supervision Program and community service, followed by two years of probation, finding that the principles of restraint, rehabilitation, and the defendant's status as a single mother supporting a teenage son favored a community-based sentence over incarceration.

The accused, Michael Ball, is charged with first-degree murder.

In this pre-trial application, the Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of ante mortem statements made by the deceased, Erin Howlett.

The defence also sought a ruling on the admissibility of certain statements, some for the truth of their contents (hearsay) and others for non-hearsay purposes (original evidence).

The court ruled on the admissibility of various statements, excluding double hearsay, statements about the deceased's job loss due to "money gone missing" due to high prejudice and low probative value, and limiting the use of false statements about studying to be a financial planner to assessing credibility and corroborating the accused's police statement, not as evidence of other plans.

The accused, Michael Ball, brought a pre-trial application seeking evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning third-party involvement in the death or disposal of the body of Erin Howlett, and the adequacy of the police investigation.

The court found that evidence suggesting third parties were present at Howlett's death or assisted in disposing of her body was admissible, as it could raise reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt, even if not directly alleging they caused the death.

The court also affirmed the defence's right to challenge the police investigation's adequacy, including specific failures to investigate third parties or conduct certain tests.

The accused, Michael Ball, charged with first-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of a statement made to police.

Police staged a break-in at Ball's residence, removed firearms, and left a threatening note linking him to the murder.

Ball reported the break-in and the note, leading to an interview where he was cautioned but felt compelled to speak due to statutory obligations (reporting stolen firearms) and perceived threats.

The court found that police tactics, including creating an aura of violence and using statutory compulsion, breached Ball's s.7 Charter rights (right to silence, principle against self-incrimination).

The court concluded that admitting the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s.24(2) of the Charter.