B.A. Allen

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of 214 grams of opium for the purpose of trafficking.

He was a first-time offender who had been addicted to opium and possessed it for personal use rather than commercial gain.

The Crown sought a 24-month conditional sentence, while the defence sought a discharge to prevent a criminal record that would bar the accused from working in the trucking industry.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding it was in the accused's best interests and not contrary to the public interest, given his lack of criminal record, good prospects for rehabilitation, and the impact a conviction would have on his employment.

The three accused were charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine, trafficking cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime following an RCMP undercover operation.

The Crown's case relied heavily on voice identification evidence from intercepted communications to link the accused Shanker to the conspiracy.

The court found the voice identification evidence unreliable due to cross-racial identification issues, expectation bias, and the poor quality of the recordings.

Without reliable voice identification, the circumstantial evidence of the accused's presence at the warehouse was insufficient to prove their involvement in the drug trafficking scheme beyond a reasonable doubt.

All accused were acquitted of the cocaine-related charges.

Pawar conceded guilt to a separate charge of possessing opium for the purpose of trafficking.

The applicant brought a Charter motion challenging the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a firearm.

The warrants were based almost entirely on tips from two confidential informants, and the Information to Obtain (ITO) was heavily redacted to protect their identities.

The court found that the police failed to adequately corroborate the informants' tips and lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe a firearm would be found at the target address.

Concluding that the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights were violated, the court applied the Grant framework and excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused, a 22-year-old Black male with no prior criminal record, pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm and an over-capacity magazine found in his bedroom.

The court considered the accused's background, including experiences with anti-Black racism and his status as a first-time offender, applying the principles of restraint and rehabilitation under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

A sentence of two years was imposed, but after applying Summers credits (1.5:1) and Duncan credits (2:1 for lockdown conditions) for pre-trial custody, the accused was sentenced to time served and 18 months of probation.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault following an encounter with a woman he met on a dating app.

The complainant alleged she was drugged and sexually assaulted at the accused's condo.

The accused, who represented himself, testified that the encounter was consensual in its non-sexual aspects and that no sexual activity occurred, citing his severe physical and medical limitations.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework and found the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and logic, while the accused testified credibly.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with human trafficking, sexual assault, and domestic assault, sought a bail review.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new culturally appropriate supervision plan and an error in law by the initial justice who failed to properly apply Gladue principles.

Applying the ladder principle and considering the applicant's Indigenous background, the court found the proposed plan, which included residence at a Native men's shelter and supervision by the Toronto Bail Program, sufficiently addressed the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The applicant was ordered released on strict conditions.

The appellant was convicted of causing unnecessary suffering and abandoning an animal in distress after dumping a live puppy in a garbage bin.

He appealed his conviction on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his trial lawyer failed to properly prepare him and his witnesses, compromised their relationship, and misunderstood the law.

He also sought an extension of time to appeal his sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application for an extension of time, finding no reasonable explanation for the delay.

The court also dismissed the conviction appeal, concluding the appellant failed to establish the material facts underlying his claims of ineffective assistance and that trial counsel's strategic decisions fell within the standard of reasonable professional judgment.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, kidnapping, and other offences, sought a bail review after being detained for two years.

The court found that the prolonged pre-trial custody constituted a material change in circumstances, warranting a de novo hearing.

The court concluded that the applicant was releasable on the secondary ground, as the proposed plan of 24/7 house arrest with two sureties was sufficient to mitigate the risk of re-offending.

Furthermore, balancing the tertiary ground factors, including the strength of the Crown's case and the gravity of the offences against the strict release plan and the applicant's lack of a criminal record, the court held that continued detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The applicant was ordered released on strict conditions.

The accused was convicted of aggravated assault and weapons offences against his estranged wife.

He subsequently failed to appear for sentencing and fled to Jamaica.

The court found he had absconded to avoid sentencing and proceeded to sentence him in absentia under s. 475(1) of the Criminal Code.

Weighing the aggravating factor of intimate partner violence against his lack of a prior record, the court imposed a sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, reduced by 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for two counts of sexual assault against a mother and daughter during acupuncture treatments.

The appeal was based on alleged errors in credibility findings, uneven scrutiny of evidence, failure to declare a mistrial due to a post-verdict civil claim, and impermissible stereotypical reasoning.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the trial judge's credibility findings and dismissal of the mistrial application were reasonable, the trial judge erred in law by relying on impermissible stereotypical reasoning regarding the likelihood of a civil claim based on masturbation.

This error reversed the burden of proof.

The appeal was granted, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for assault, forcible confinement, failure to comply with probation, and sexual assault against his wife.

At trial, the complainant recanted her initial police statement, which was admitted for the truth of its contents.

The appeal judge upheld the convictions for assault, forcible confinement, and breach of probation, finding no misapprehension of evidence or improper shifting of the burden of proof.

However, the appeal judge quashed the sexual assault conviction, finding the trial judge reversed the burden of proof on consent and relied on impermissible myths and stereotypes regarding the complainant's sexual preferences.

The offender was convicted of fraud over $5,000 after defrauding a woman he met on a dating website of $595,000.

He used a false surname and convinced her to invest in a fictitious internet app and second mortgages, but instead used the funds for personal expenses, gambling debts, and restitution for a prior fraud conviction.

The court found the offender's actions highly exploitative and noted his extensive related criminal record.

The court sentenced the offender to 6 years' imprisonment, less 462 days of pre-trial custody credit, and ordered restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture, each in the amount of $558,456.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and driving over 80.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the breath samples were taken 'as soon as practicable' by making improper inferences about a 16-minute delay, and erred in finding his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol without expert correlation evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's inferences regarding the delay were reasonable and grounded in common sense, and that the finding of impairment was supported by the evidence of bad driving, physical indicia of alcohol consumption, and breath test results.

The applicant, facing charges including fraud, aggravated assault, and carrying a concealed weapon, sought a bail review following his detention on the secondary ground.

He argued that the withdrawal of certain driving charges, the proposal of two new sureties, and the COVID-19 pandemic constituted material changes in circumstance.

The court found that while the withdrawal of charges and the pandemic's impact on correctional facilities were material changes, the pandemic did not personally affect the applicant's health.

The court ultimately denied the application, finding the proposed supervision plan inadequate to mitigate the substantial likelihood that the applicant would commit further offences.

The applicant, who had been convicted of fraud, applied to reopen a stay of proceedings application based on alleged Charter violations.

He argued that his s. 8 rights were violated by the frequent and allegedly public manner of strip searches while in pre-trial custody, and that his s. 7 rights were violated by the previous Crown counsel's refusal to consent to an adjournment amidst late disclosure.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the strip searches were conducted in accordance with policy and justified by institutional security concerns, and that the Crown's conduct did not amount to bad faith or shock the conscience of the community.

The court concluded that this was not one of the clearest of cases warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay of proceedings.

The offender was convicted of possession of a restricted firearm, a prohibited over-capacity magazine, and possession of cocaine and heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the drug operation and the presence of a firearm, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and strong family support.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, with the firearm offences to be served consecutively to the drug offences.

The offender received enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions and strict bail conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of 631 days.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon following an altercation outside a nightclub where his estranged wife was slashed in the face with a knife, requiring 46 stitches.

The court weighed conflicting witness testimony, rejecting the accused's claim that an unknown man accidentally cut the victim while trying to attack him.

Finding the Crown witnesses credible and the accused's version a fabrication, the court convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused was convicted of sexual interference for touching his step-daughter's buttocks.

The court found the accused ineligible for a conditional discharge as the offence could not be proven to have occurred before the maximum penalty was increased.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children by persons in a position of trust, the court imposed a 60-day intermittent custodial sentence, reduced to 11 days after credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years' probation.

The offender was convicted of administering a noxious substance and invitation to sexual touching in relation to his 11-year-old great-niece.

The court stayed a trafficking charge under the Kienapple principle.

The offender provided the child with crack cocaine and urged her to touch his penis.

The court found the offender was in a position of trust and the victim was vulnerable.

The court imposed consecutive sentences of 9 months for administering a noxious substance and 12 months for invitation to sexual touching, for a total of 21 months' incarceration.

The court declined to grant enhanced pre-sentence credit for bail or lockdown conditions.

Following a jury verdict finding the accused guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his stepdaughter, the defence requested a bifurcated hearing to determine the proven facts for sentencing.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Ferguson to determine the factual implications of the ambiguous jury verdict.

Due to significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence regarding hundreds of alleged incidents, the court found only the minimum consistent facts proven.

The court concluded that only one incident of touching the complainant's buttocks was proven beyond a reasonable doubt for the purpose of sentencing.