Anthony Paas

The accused was charged with one count of theft under $5,000 and two counts of assault.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence and video surveillance.

The victims were assaulted with pepper spray by masked individuals in an alleyway and one victim's purse was stolen.

The central issue was identity.

The court found the accused guilty based on compelling circumstantial evidence including video surveillance showing the accused leaving the building wearing a mask, appearing moments after the assault, following the victim, picking up the victim's dropped jacket without attempting to return it, and coordinating with other masked individuals to bring stolen items back into the building.

The applicant, John Geddes, brought a Charter application under ss. 7, 8, and 9, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence (knife, firearm, drugs) seized upon his arrest.

He argued police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the search was illegal, and excessive force was used.

The court dismissed the application, finding that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on DVR footage and victim information, the search incident to arrest was lawful and reasonable for safety and evidence discovery, and the force used was reasonable, proportionate, and necessary given the applicant's resistance and the dynamic circumstances.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (a loaded handgun and drugs) found in a hidden compartment of a vehicle during a search, arguing that the search warrant lacked reasonable grounds for weapons and that the search continued after the warrant's expiration.

The court found that while the search warrant did not establish reasonable grounds to search for weapons, thus breaching the applicant's section 8 Charter rights regarding the "gun dog" search, the search itself was not unauthorized by law due to its duration, applying the principle that a search commenced within the warrant's timeframe can continue until completion.

Applying the Grant test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that despite the Charter breach, the evidence should be admitted.

The court reasoned that the state conduct was at the less serious end of the spectrum, the impact on the applicant's privacy was attenuated by other valid search grounds, and society's interest in adjudicating serious charges outweighed the breach.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought forfeiture of Canadian and American currency under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, alleging it was proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity, specifically drug trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The application proceeded unopposed as the individual associated with the funds, Mr. Leng, could not be reached by his counsel.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the currency was indeed proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity, citing evidence such as the amount and denominations of cash, Mr. Leng's criminal record, and the discovery of controlled substances.

The court also determined that forfeiture was in the interests of justice, as the property was closely tied to illegal activity and promoted the Act's purposes.

The forfeiture order was granted, with no order as to costs.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking and proceeds of crime, arguing the trial judge erred in her analysis of circumstantial evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapplied the analytical framework by examining evidence in a piecemeal fashion, scrutinizing individual pieces against a reasonable doubt standard, and requiring the Crown to negate speculative inferences.

The court held that the trial judge failed to consider the cumulative effect of the evidence as a whole and that alternative inferences inconsistent with guilt must be reasonable, not merely speculative.

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

The Crown sought to admit four statements from a deceased witness (J.T.) at a preliminary hearing under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the "prima facie air of reliability" test to determine admissibility.

It found the portions of J.T.'s statements related to the kidnapping credible and trustworthy due to corroborating evidence, despite procedural deficiencies in statement-taking.

However, the portions related to drug possession and the identification of "Z" were deemed unreliable and were excised, as J.T.'s account was inconsistent and self-serving regarding her involvement with drugs.

The court affirmed its power to excise unreliable portions of a statement.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after police arrested him and found a loaded handgun in his fanny pack.

The police acted on a stale, uncorroborated tip from a confidential informant and briefly observed the accused riding an e-bike before blocking his path and arresting him.

The court found the officers lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, violating the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the breach and its impact on the accused's rights, resulting in a finding of not guilty.

The accused was charged with five counts of counselling the commission of offences that were not committed, including counselling the murder of his wife, planting a gun and drugs in her car, and the murder of her family lawyer.

The Crown's case relied heavily on recordings of the accused's conversations with a police agent and an undercover officer posing as a hitman.

The accused claimed the police altered the recordings to frame him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding the recordings accurate and the accused's claims baseless.

The court found the accused guilty on all five counts, concluding he actively induced the undercover officer to commit the offences and intended for them to be carried out.

This criminal trial concerned multiple charges, including aggravated assault and firearm offences, stemming from a shooting incident where a child was injured.

The court, sitting without a jury, evaluated circumstantial evidence primarily focused on identity.

One defendant was found guilty of numerous charges based on a confession, corroborating video evidence, and flight from police, while the other defendant was acquitted on all counts due to insufficient evidence and unreliable expert testimony regarding fingerprints.

The accused were charged with multiple offences arising from an armed robbery of a jewellery store.

One accused pled guilty to several charges but contested the charge of attempted murder, while the other accused contested all charges based on identity.

The court found the circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data and intercepted communications, insufficient to prove the identity of the second robber beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also acquitted the first accused of attempted murder, finding she lacked subjective awareness of any intent to kill by her co-perpetrator.

Both accused were acquitted of the contested charges.

The accused was charged with possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that a warrantless search of the residence constituted a breach of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that while a breach occurred, the police acted in good faith based on legitimate public safety concerns arising from a volatile domestic dispute involving references to a firearm.

Applying the section 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis from R v. Grant, the court balanced the seriousness of the police conduct, the impact on the accused's privacy interests, and society's interest in adjudicating the case.

The court concluded that admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and admitted the evidence.

Following convictions for criminal harassment and breaches of probation, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the offender’s extensive criminal history including numerous sexual offences, violent offences, and repeated breaches of court orders, as well as psychiatric assessments diagnosing schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury, paraphilias, and substance abuse disorders.

Expert evidence established a high risk of future sexual violence and persistent failure to restrain behaviour.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii).

The offender failed to establish that community management would adequately protect the public, and the court imposed a penitentiary sentence followed by long‑term supervision.

The accused applied for a directed verdict on a charge of robbery with a firearm at the close of the Crown’s case.

The firearm was never recovered and had not been discharged during the robbery.

The court considered whether there was any evidence capable of supporting a jury finding that the object used during the robbery met the definition of a firearm under s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

Witness testimony describing the object, its apparent metal construction, its use to strike the victim, and threats to shoot provided circumstantial evidence capable of supporting that inference.

The court held that this evidence, if believed, could permit a jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the item was a firearm.