Antia Long Ying Kwan

The accused, Shahabeldin Mohamed, was found guilty of dangerous operation of a conveyance, accessory after the fact to robbery, and failure to stop when pursued by police.

Prior to sentencing, the Crown and defence reached a resolution: the Crown would stay the accessory and failure to stop charges, and a joint submission for a conditional sentence would be made for the dangerous operation count.

The court addressed four issues: the Crown's power to stay charges post-conviction but pre-sentence, whether to accede to the joint submission, and the appropriateness of a DNA order and a firearms prohibition.

The court affirmed the Crown's power to stay charges, accepted the joint submission for a 16-month conditional sentence, but declined to impose a DNA order or a firearms prohibition, finding that the dangerous driving offence in this case did not involve violence against a person.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Terrence Barrett, who is charged with second-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown sought to admit various utterances and two videotaped statements made to police.

The defence argued that the statements were involuntary due to Barrett's medical and mental state and oppressive conditions, and that his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was infringed.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary and that Barrett's Charter rights were not infringed.

Consequently, the Crown's application to admit the statements was granted, and the defence application to exclude them was dismissed.

The accused, Daniel Kenneth Porter, charged with failing to stop at the scene of a fatal accident, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained by the Crown, alleging a breach of solicitor-client privilege by his former lawyer, Ms. Elme Schmid, under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defence argued that Ms. Schmid breached privilege by providing information to the police without explicit waiver, and that the waiver was not voluntary.

The Crown contended that Ms. Schmid's advice was competent, Porter fabricated his account, and any remedy would not apply to a non-state actor.

The court found Porter's evidence unreliable and incredible, preferring Ms. Schmid's testimony, and concluded there was no breach of solicitor-client privilege, finding an implied waiver.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the trial was ordered to proceed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on first degree murder for the stabbing death of Milan Segota, with the defence conceding second degree murder.

The Crown also sought committal on aggravated assault for injuries to Aimee Novak, with the defence conceding assault with a weapon.

The court examined whether circumstantial evidence supported inferences of planning and deliberation necessary for first degree murder.

The court found insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation, distinguishing the case from situations involving armed ambush or premeditated knife acquisition.

The defendant was committed to stand trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault.

This is a ruling on committal for trial following a three-month preliminary inquiry into Project Marvel, a police investigation into drug and firearm trafficking by members of a criminal organization known as the Young Buck Killers (YBK).

Nine defendants faced sixty-four counts including trafficking and possession of cocaine and other drugs, trafficking and possession of firearms, and conspiracy charges.

The Crown alleged that most defendants committed these offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the YBK criminal organization.

The court applied the test for committal established in R. v. Arcuri, requiring that there be admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit most defendants to trial on the charges, though some counts were discharged where the evidence was insufficient or speculative.

The court's analysis focused on whether the predicate offences were sufficiently connected to the criminal organization and whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.

The accused was charged with possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000, possession of cocaine and cannabis for the purpose of trafficking, possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of a recognizance.

Police executed a search warrant at a residence co-owned by the accused and discovered drugs, drug paraphernalia, cash, and packaging materials.

The principal issue at trial was whether the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs found in the residence.

The court held that the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused exercised control over the drugs or knew of their presence, particularly given evidence that other individuals resided in or frequented the home and one individual occupied the bedroom where drugs were found.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused sought Charter remedies including exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) and a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) based on alleged police failure to preserve text messages.

The defence filed its materials late and failed to comply with multiple requirements of the Criminal Proceedings Rules for the Superior Court of Justice, including notice, timing, and proper content of application materials.

The court found that the late and deficient filings prevented the Crown from adequately preparing to respond to the Charter applications before the scheduled trial.

Emphasizing the importance of procedural rules to ensure fairness and prevent trial ambush, the court vacated the scheduled trial date.

The resulting delay was attributed to the defence.