Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law

Nitish Verma was convicted by a jury of importing 13.739 kg of opium.

The Crown sought a nine-year sentence, while the defence argued for seven years, citing mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of criminal record, positive community contributions, and strong support network.

The court considered sentencing principles, including general deterrence and denunciation, and the less addictive nature of opium compared to other Schedule I substances.

Despite the large quantity of drugs and profit motive being aggravating factors, the court found the offender to be a courier, not a principal, and noted his high rehabilitative prospects.

A sentence of seven years was imposed, along with a DNA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a forfeiture order.

The appellant, Justice Okojie, appealed his convictions for importing and possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The primary ground of appeal concerned when the offence of importing is complete, particularly in controlled delivery scenarios, arguing it was complete before his involvement.

The second ground challenged the reasonableness of the verdict, asserting that his knowledge of the package containing a controlled substance was not the only reasonable inference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, clarifying that importing is complete when the contraband is no longer under the control of customs authorities, and upholding the trial judge's finding of knowledge based on circumstantial evidence.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code and several highway traffic offences following a motor vehicle crash on the 407 at the 400 ramp.

The Crown proved the accused was prohibited from driving at the time of the crash.

The sole issue was identification—whether the Crown proved the accused drove the vehicle and fled the scene.

Two Crown witnesses provided descriptions of the driver, but neither participated in a photo lineup.

The court found the in-dock identification, based on general observations and not tested by a photo lineup, could not be given much weight.

The charge was dismissed as the Crown failed to prove the identity of the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to s. 264(3) of the Criminal Code arising from alleged unwanted contact and harassment of a lead guitarist at her church.

The complainant testified that the accused initiated unwanted text messages, entered his vehicle without permission, blocked his vehicle in a parking lot, and engaged in unusual behavior at the church despite repeated warnings from church pastors and police.

The accused testified that she was never given a reason to stop her behavior.

The court found the complainant and Crown witnesses credible and rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable.

The court found that the accused was directly told that her contact was unwanted and that her persistent behavior reasonably caused the complainant to fear for his safety.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and also found her fit to stand trial.

The accused was convicted of mischief in relation to religious property motivated by religious prejudice or hatred under s. 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, a member of the Shia Muslim faith, attended a mosque during Ramadan while intoxicated, insulted occupants, and urinated on the mosque steps in front of children and arriving families.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 90 days for deterrence purposes.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with conditions including 18 months probation, reporting to probation, a prohibition on attending the mosque, and 40 hours of community service within 12 months, finding the circumstances unusual and placing the offence at the lower end of the sentencing scale.

The Crown brought an application under section 540(7) of the Criminal Code to admit a videotaped police interview with a witness who subsequently died.

The witness had been interviewed regarding his role as a taxi driver transporting individuals allegedly involved in a first-degree murder.

The court declined to admit the statement, finding it did not meet the threshold of being credible or trustworthy, and exercising its discretion to refuse admission given that the declarant would be unavailable for cross-examination at trial and the evidence would therefore be inadmissible at trial unless it met the principled hearsay exception standard.

The offender was convicted on two counts of possessing child pornography under separate informations.

The first offence occurred in December 2013 when police discovered 10,613 images and 257 videos on the offender's computer, depicting pre-pubescent males as young as age six.

While on bail with conditions prohibiting computer access, the offender committed a second offence in November 2015, possessing approximately 700 sexually explicit images and videos on a cell phone.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 16 months and 18 months custody respectively, followed by 3 years probation on each count, along with mandatory sex offender registration for life, DNA sampling, and a 15-year prohibition order under section 161.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences and weapons violations.

Police obtained search warrants based on information from two confidential informants that the accused was in possession of a firearm.

During surveillance, officers observed the accused carrying a satchel and conducted a takedown stop.

A firearm was found in the satchel during a protective search.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrants and the lawfulness of the investigative detention and search.

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds to stop and investigate the accused based on the judicially issued search warrants and the circumstances observed, and that the protective search of the satchel was warranted for officer safety.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing the death of a two-year-old child who was left in a hot vehicle at an unlicensed daycare facility.

The accused operated an illegal daycare with 35 children, seven times the legal capacity, despite a prior warning from the Ministry of Education.

The child died of hyperthermia after being forgotten in the vehicle for several hours.

The accused misrepresented the cause of death to emergency responders and parents, and evidence was subsequently destroyed.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 22 months followed by three years probation with strict conditions.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, following a rear-end collision on October 31, 2015 in Toronto.

The trial addressed two main issues: whether the defendant's section 10(b) Charter rights were breached due to delay in breath testing, and whether the breath testing on an approved screening device was conducted "forthwith" as required by the Criminal Code.

The court found no Charter breach, finding that the defendant was adequately informed of her right to counsel despite the delay.

The court also found that the "forthwith" requirement was satisfied given the unusual circumstances, including the off-duty status of the initial officer and the heavy police workload on Halloween night.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device in compliance with a demand made by a police officer under subsection 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the demand for breath testing was valid, the testing was conducted forthwith despite a 30-minute delay caused by the unavailability of an approved screening device, and that a technical breach of Charter section 10(b) rights regarding the failure to communicate the free legal aid telephone number was admissible under subsection 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with mischief in relation to a property used for religious worship contrary to s. 430(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused entered a mosque during Ramadan services, insulted Islam and those present, and then urinated on the mosque steps in front of children and families arriving for the service.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, rejected the defence of necessity, and found that the Crown proved the mischief was motivated by religious hatred.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath test results and physical observations of impairment.

The accused alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that while the officer lacked subjective reasonable grounds to believe the accused was impaired at the time of arrest, objectively reasonable grounds existed.

The court also found no breach of sections 7, 10(a), or 10(b).

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the breath test evidence, finding that while the Charter violation was serious, the impact on the accused's rights was minimal and society's interest in adjudication on the merits strongly favoured admission.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit after police found him outside his vehicle in an intoxicated state following a collision with a parked car.

The Crown conceded it could not prove the offence of operating over 80 due to lack of evidence establishing the time of the accident.

The Crown alternatively sought a conviction for the included offence of having care and control of a motor vehicle over 80.

The court dismissed the charge, finding that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had actual care and control of the vehicle.

The evidence was equally consistent with the defendant remaining at the scene to comply with his statutory duty under the Highway Traffic Act.

In a voir dire during a criminal prosecution for importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown sought a ruling that the accused’s videotaped police statement was voluntary and admissible.

The defence argued the statement was improperly induced because police referenced the accused’s family being in trouble due to the intercepted drug package.

Applying the confessions rule and the contextual approach from leading Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court considered whether police conduct amounted to a threat or promise capable of overbearing the accused’s will.

The court found no quid pro quo or inducement linking the accused’s cooperation to leniency for himself or his family.

The videotaped statement was therefore found to be voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and admissible at trial.

The offender was sentenced for multiple offences including attempting to procure a person into prostitution, breaches of a s. 810.2 recognizance, breaches of probation, and possession of stolen property.

The most serious offence involved attempting to recruit a 16‑year‑old into prostitution while subject to a recognizance intended to prevent serious personal injury offences.

The court emphasized the offender’s extensive criminal record involving violence, prostitution-related offences, and sexual offences against minors, as well as repeated breaches of court orders.

After crediting 23 months of pre-trial custody on a 1:1 basis, the court imposed an additional two years’ imprisonment followed by a three-year probation order with extensive supervisory and non-association conditions.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of a handgun discovered in the trunk of a vehicle following a police stop.

Police officers testified they observed the accused place a firearm in the trunk before stopping the vehicle and conducting a search incident to arrest.

The court found significant credibility and reliability problems in the officers’ testimony, including material inconsistencies and implausible explanations, and concluded the Crown failed to establish that officers honestly believed they had seen a gun placed in the trunk.

The court held the search was unreasonable under s. 8 of the Charter and the detention was arbitrary under s. 9.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court determined the serious Charter breaches and impact on the accused’s rights outweighed society’s interest in adjudication on the merits, and the firearm evidence was excluded.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 8 seeking exclusion of evidence obtained from his cellular phone following his arrest.

Police seized the phone from a relative in the parking lot of the police detachment shortly after the accused surrendered and conducted a cursory search of text messages without a warrant.

The court held that the seizure and search were lawful as searches incidental to arrest, given the temporal and geographic proximity to the arrest and reasonable grounds to believe the phone contained evidence of the offence.

The search was limited and focused on relevant messages.

In the alternative, the court held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) following the Grant framework.

In a criminal trial involving multiple allegations of sexual assault by an anesthesiologist against sedated patients during surgery, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility and scope of defence expert evidence concerning the effects of psychotropic drugs on perception and memory.

Applying the framework from R. v. Mohan and R. v. Abbey, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification, followed by a cost‑benefit analysis of probative value versus prejudice.

The court held that three defence experts—including two anesthesiologists and a psychiatrist—met the threshold admissibility requirements.

Although limitations existed regarding aspects of their expertise, those limitations affected weight rather than admissibility.

The experts’ testimony was admitted subject to general limits preventing opinions outside their expertise, including speculation about surgical practices or motives for the alleged offences.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following the discovery of a large outdoor grow operation containing nearly 6000 plants.

The court considered the offender’s role as a gardener, absence of a prior criminal record, guilty plea, and compliance with bail conditions over several years.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of approximately fourteen and a half months, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the scale of the operation.

The court accepted that imprisonment was required but considered collateral immigration consequences, which could lead to removal from Canada if the sentence exceeded six months on a count.

A global custodial sentence structured to remain within an appropriate sentencing range while recognizing those collateral consequences was imposed.