Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences

The accused sought leave to cross-examine Detective Constable William Crawford, the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) affidavit used to secure search warrants under the Cannabis Act.

The accused was charged with three counts under the Cannabis Act and six counts under the Criminal Code related to unlicensed cannabis possession and firearms offences.

The court considered five proposed areas of cross-examination: hemp checks conducted, ability to differentiate cannabis from hemp plants, interpretation of monitored conversations, failure to include certain surveillance dates, and alleged failures to be full and frank in specific paragraphs of the ITO.

The court granted leave for cross-examination regarding hemp checks and the basis for belief about plant identification, but denied leave for the other three areas.

The applicant, Traequon Mahoney, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, seeking release from custody pending trial on two sets of serious charges (armed robbery and firearm offences).

The court found a material change in circumstances, entitling the applicant to a de novo hearing.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's breach of prior bail conditions, the court noted the applicant's lack of criminal record and a new, potentially stronger, release plan.

The court found the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention to be evenly balanced.

Ultimately, the application was adjourned, with the judge requiring further sworn affidavits from the proposed sureties and the applicant to provide a detailed, firm, and enforceable 24/7 supervision schedule and specific bail conditions, including weapon searches, social media restrictions, and no-contact provisions with prior associates.

The applicant was charged with seven firearm-related offences and brought a motion to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant on a residence.

The applicant argued that the information to obtain (ITO) for the search warrant lacked sufficient grounds, contained inaccurate statements and improper generalizations, and that the affiant was not truthful about independently confirming information regarding the confidential informer's reliability.

The court applied the narrow Garofoli review standard and found that despite deficiencies in the ITO, there remained a sufficient basis on which the issuing justice could have issued the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

This decision concerns a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code for an accused facing multiple firearms-related charges, including unauthorized possession, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession with serial number removed, possessing in contravention of a prohibition order, and failing to comply with a probation order.

The accused had been in pre-trial custody for 18 months.

The court conducted a de novo bail hearing, with the onus on the accused to show cause why detention was not justified.

The court assessed the secondary ground (public safety) and tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice), considering the accused's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, the strength of the Crown's circumstantial case, and the proposed surety's release plan.

The court found the accused failed to demonstrate that detention was unjustified on either ground, concluding that the release plan was inadequate and that release would undermine public confidence, despite the pre-trial custody duration not yet exceeding a likely sentence.

The applicant sought a review of his continued detention under s. 525 of the Criminal Code, arguing the original bail hearing was flawed and that delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic warranted release.

The court found no new evidence and upheld the Justice of the Peace's decision to detain on secondary grounds, citing the applicant's extensive criminal record, the violent nature of the alleged home invasion, and the unsuitability of the proposed sureties.

The application was dismissed, but a renewed application was permitted by October 30, 2020, to reassess the impact of pandemic-related delays.

The accused were jointly charged with offences arising from a gunpoint robbery at a Husky truck stop on Highway 401 near London, Ontario, and a subsequent attempted break-in and stabbing at a car wash near Warden Avenue in Scarborough, Toronto.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the London robbery and the Toronto attempted break-in and assault.

However, the Crown failed to establish the motive for the Toronto incidents as robbery, and therefore the accused were acquitted of the joint robbery charge relating to the car wash owner.

The accused were convicted on most counts but acquitted of the Toronto robbery charge.

The applicant challenged the validity of search warrants under s. 8 of the Charter at a Garofoli hearing (Step 6).

The Crown sought to defend warrants for searches at three locations based on information from confidential informants.

The court applied the "three Cs" test from R. v. Debot (compelling, credible, corroborated) to assess the reliability of the informant information.

The court found that the informant's detailed, first-hand information about the accused's drug dealing activities, combined with the informant's credibility and police corroboration, met the requisite standard for warrant issuance.

The warrants were upheld as valid.

A young person charged with three bank robberies committed with an imitation firearm, along with charges of non-compliance with undertakings and bail orders, sought judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed bail on secondary and tertiary grounds under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the young person presented a substantial likelihood of committing further serious offences if released and that no bail conditions could adequately protect the public or maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The proposed sureties (the young person's parents) were found to be unable to effectively supervise their son, having failed to enforce previous bail orders.

The court ordered the young person detained in custody until trial.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence from a trial decision.

The conviction appeal challenged the trial judge's conclusion on a Garofoli application regarding a CDSA warrant for a warehouse search.

The appellant argued that the affiant failed to disclose relevant information, included inappropriate opinion, intentionally misled the authorizing judge, and that insufficient grounds existed that marijuana would be found in the warehouse.

The Court of Appeal found the ITO provided ample evidentiary basis for the conclusion that marijuana would be found at the warehouse and saw no basis to find the affiant was untruthful or provided inappropriate opinion.

The appeal from conviction was dismissed.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed as the sentence imposed did not reflect an error in principle or was otherwise unfit.

The accused was charged with assaulting the complainant by banging his head against a wall twice and tearing his lip, requiring eight stitches.

The complainant and accused were in a polygamous marriage under Sharia law.

The accused denied the assault, claiming the injury was self-inflicted or caused by someone else.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and corroborated by her daughter's testimony.

The complainant's evidence was found to be internally inconsistent, inconsistent with his prior affidavit, and motivated by financial and community concerns.

The court concluded the complainant intentionally injured himself after leaving the home and fabricated the assault allegation to gain leverage in family law proceedings and minimize his financial obligations.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case relied on breath sample analysis showing readings of 130 mg and 140 mg.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 (unreasonable search and seizure), 9 (arbitrary detention), and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that police breached the accused's section 8 rights by unlawfully entering and remaining in the home beyond the scope of the implied invitation to knock doctrine, and breached section 10(b) by failing to inform the accused of his right to counsel without delay during an investigative detention.

The court also found a breach of section 10(b) regarding the timing of rights to counsel.

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence as the serious Charter breaches outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Both charges were acquitted.

The accused was convicted of assault with a weapon and breach of probation following a violent attack on her housemate while the victim slept.

The accused struck the victim multiple times with an exercise rope with metal clips, causing significant injuries including head wounds requiring staples and stitches, and facial bruising.

The sentencing decision involved a detailed analysis of Gladue factors, given the accused's Indigenous heritage and traumatic background including childhood apprehension, foster care placement, family violence, and substance abuse issues.

Despite the serious nature of the offence and the accused's prior criminal record involving violence, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 187 days (after pre-sentence custody and bail condition credits) plus 18 months probation, reflecting the weight of Gladue considerations while maintaining proportionality and denunciation principles.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with second-degree murder of Dakoda Martin and aggravated assault of Andre Williams.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for aggravated assault and manslaughter but argued there was no evidence of subjective foresight of death required for second-degree murder.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including the location and nature of the fatal chest wound, the depth of penetration, and evidence of a deliberate stabbing to a vulnerable area while the victim lay on the ground, could reasonably support an inference that the accused knew the bodily harm would likely cause death.

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

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault by wounding and uttering a threat to cause death following an incident in which she stabbed the complainant twice.

The Crown's case relied on the evidence of the complainant and a witness.

The defendant testified that she acted in self-defence after being thrown to the ground and pinned down by the complainant, who was about to punch her.

The trial judge found credibility issues with all three witnesses but determined that the defendant's evidence, while not fully believed, left reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances of the incident and the availability of self-defence.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of s. 8 (unreasonable search) and s. 9 (arbitrary detention) in relation to the taking of breath samples.

The central issue was whether the arresting officer could reasonably rely upon an Approved Screening Device (ASD) fail result to make an approved instrument demand.

The court found that the officer held an honest and objectively reasonable belief that the ASD device was in proper working order, and therefore the search was reasonable.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant was charged with five drug-related offences, six firearm-related offences, one charge of proceeds obtained by crime, and four charges of possession of stolen property arising from a marijuana production operation.

The applicant brought a Charter section 8 application challenging the search warrant executed at his residence on September 19, 2011.

The applicant sought to exclude all evidence seized during the search.

The court conducted a voir dire to examine the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant.

After careful review and redaction of irrelevant, misleading, and prejudicial information from the ITO, the court found that sufficient reasonable and probable grounds existed to justify the issuance of the warrant based on the totality of circumstances, including distinctive electricity consumption patterns and police observations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence seized from their residence at 39 Patricia Avenue, North York, on the grounds that their Charter rights under section 8 were violated.

The applicants challenged both the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain (ITO) and the use of a telewarrant procedure.

The court found that the ITO was carelessly drafted, materially misleading, and factually inaccurate.

The court also found that the telewarrant process was not justified under section 487.1 of the Criminal Code, as it was not impracticable for the officer to appear in person.

Additionally, the court found that a supervisory officer had made an undisclosed telephone call to the Justice of the Peace that influenced the issuance of the warrant.

The court concluded that the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter as the search warrant application fell far below constitutional standards.