B.A. Allen

The applicant was found guilty of fraud over $5,000.

In the same reasons for judgment, the trial judge dismissed the applicant's pre-trial application for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process by correctional officers, without allowing a full evidentiary record.

The applicant brought an application for a mistrial, arguing the denial of procedural fairness gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias tainting the entire proceeding.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that re-opening the stay application to allow a full evidentiary record was the appropriate and proportionate remedy.

The accused, charged with possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking, challenged the validity of search warrants executed at their residences under section 8 of the Charter.

The warrants were based heavily on information from two confidential informants, which was substantially redacted in the Information to Obtain (ITO) to protect informer privilege.

Applying the Garofoli Step 6 procedure and the Debot inquiries, the court found that the redacted ITO, even with Crown summaries, lacked sufficient reliable and compelling evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The police surveillance failed to meaningfully corroborate the informants' tips regarding the presence of drugs at the target address.

Consequently, the court ruled the warrants invalid and the subsequent searches and arrests unlawful.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking cocaine and one count of offering to sell a firearm to an undercover officer.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the drug operation and the accused's prior related record, against mitigating factors such as his youth, guilty pleas, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months, but granted 6 months' credit for time spent under strict bail conditions (house arrest) and 8 days for pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 12 months minus 8 days, plus two years' probation.

The accused, charged with dangerous driving and firearm offences, sought a bail review after being denied bail on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the proposed addition of a GPS ankle monitor constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the strict supervision plan, including house arrest with two sureties and electronic monitoring, addressed the secondary ground concerns.

Balancing the factors under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code, the court found that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for interim judicial release was granted.

The accused was charged with firearm offences and obstructing a police officer following a shooting.

The police detained the accused and others in an apartment under exigent circumstances.

After the accused provided false names, he was arrested for obstruction of justice.

The police subsequently conducted a warrantless search of his cellphone, discovering photos of him holding a firearm used in the shooting.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found multiple Charter violations, including an unlawful cellphone search, an unreasonable strip search, failure to file a Report to Justice for the cellphone extraction, and unreasonable delays in informing the accused of his firearm charges and facilitating his right to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court concluded that the admission of the photos would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

The accused was charged with firearm and drug trafficking offences after police executed a search warrant at his family home, finding a loaded handgun, cocaine, heroin, and cash in a bedroom.

At trial, a defence witness unexpectedly testified that the firearm belonged to him.

Police arrested and interviewed the witness mid-testimony, prompting the defence to bring an abuse of process application alleging witness tampering.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police acted within their lawful ancillary powers to investigate the witness's confession.

On the merits, the court rejected the witness's confession as not credible and found the accused guilty of all charges based on constructive possession.

The accused applied for bail pending his appeal of an impaired driving conviction.

He argued that his s. 10(b) Charter rights were violated when police defaulted to duty counsel instead of allowing him to contact his counsel of choice, and that the trial judge erred in treating his blood alcohol reading as an indicia of impairment.

The court found that the roadside indicia of impairment were obtained prior to the alleged Charter breach and lacked a sufficient temporal, contextual, or causal connection to be excluded under s. 24(2).

The court also rejected the argument regarding the trial judge's factual introduction.

Concluding that the appeal was frivolous, the court denied bail pending appeal.

The accused was charged with 14 counts related to human trafficking, procuring, and material benefit involving two young women.

The Crown sought to admit cross-count similar fact evidence, which the court excluded due to substantial dissimilarities in the circumstances.

Regarding the first complainant, the court found her evidence unreliable and acquitted the accused of all related charges.

Regarding the second complainant, the court found no evidence of exploitation or coercion, resulting in acquittals for human trafficking and material benefit.

However, the court found the accused guilty of two counts of procuring for introducing and recruiting the second complainant to work in the sex trade.

The applicant, sought for extradition to Romania for a manslaughter conviction arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident, applied under s. 32(1)(c) of the Extradition Act to adduce expert accident reconstruction evidence.

The applicant sought to challenge the reliability of the requesting state's expert report regarding his speed at the time of the collision.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence did not establish that the requesting state's evidence was manifestly unreliable, as the applicant's expert lacked access to the complete evidentiary record.

The court further held there was sufficient evidence of dangerous driving and manslaughter to justify committal, and ordered the applicant committed into custody to await surrender.

The accused was stopped by police in a residential building stairwell while they were investigating drug and gun activity.

The police detained and arrested the accused for possession of marijuana based on an alleged smell of marijuana and an alleged spontaneous admission.

A subsequent warrantless search revealed a loaded firearm, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, marijuana, and cash.

The court found the police lacked reasonable grounds for the detention and arrest, rejecting the officers' evidence regarding the smell of marijuana.

The court found multiple Charter violations, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), unreasonable search (s. 8), and failure to provide prompt rights to counsel (s. 10).

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the evidence due to the serious and cumulative nature of the police misconduct.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, charged with arson and four counts of attempted murder, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The accused proposed a new plan of supervision involving 24/7 house arrest with two sureties, which constituted a material change in circumstances from his previous situation of living in a homeless shelter.

The court found the proposed plan mitigated the secondary ground concerns and that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice under the tertiary ground.

The bail review was granted and the accused was released on strict conditions.

The accused, charged with serious firearms and drug trafficking offences, sought a bail review after being denied bail.

The court found that a newly proposed supervision plan, which included house arrest, three sureties pledging significant funds, and an ankle monitor, constituted a material change in circumstances.

Balancing the tertiary ground factors, the court concluded that the strict release plan was sufficient to maintain confidence in the administration of justice and granted bail.

The applicant condominium corporation sought an order under s. 134 of the Condominium Act to invalidate the election of the respondent to the board of directors, alleging a commercial proxy for 33 votes was improperly counted as only one vote.

The court found that the commercial proxy was not present at the annual general meeting or the recount.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the proxy had been present, it would have been invalid because it lacked the required initials beside the candidate's name, contrary to the clear instructions of the meeting chairperson.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow the complainant in a human trafficking case to testify by video link from Nova Scotia.

The complainant, who was 17 at the time of the alleged offences, had returned to Halifax and expressed severe anxiety about returning to Toronto to testify, fearing the accused's associates and the disruption to her support network.

The court granted the application, finding that the complainant's vulnerability and the potential for emotional distress in Toronto would likely interfere with the presentation of her evidence, and that modern video technology sufficiently protected the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

Two summary judgment motions were brought regarding equipment leasing contracts.

The lessor, National Leasing, sought judgment for unpaid lease amounts, while the vendor, Telepacer, sought to dismiss the lessees' claim for non-delivery of equipment.

The court found that the equipment was delivered, rejecting the lessees' unsupported assertions of non-delivery.

Furthermore, the court held that the lessees were bound by the lease terms to pay the outstanding amounts regardless of the delivery dispute.

Both motions for summary judgment were granted, and the lessees' counterclaim was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to stay or transfer two Small Claims Court actions commenced by the plaintiff to the Superior Court, where a related misrepresentation action was pending.

The Superior Court action alleged misrepresentations inducing the franchise agreement, while the Small Claims Court actions alleged post-agreement contractual breaches regarding a promotion fund and fee reductions.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the actions were factually and legally distinct, and that transferring the smaller claims would impose an unnecessary financial burden on the plaintiff.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, sexual exploitation, threatening bodily harm, common assault, and assault with a weapon against his stepdaughter over a six-year period.

The court found the offender was in a position of trust and that the aggravating factors, including the prolonged nature of the abuse and threats of violence, outweighed the mitigating factor of having no prior record.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the sexual interference charge was stayed.

The court imposed a global penitentiary sentence of 8 years, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The 65-year-old accused pleaded guilty to trafficking a small amount of cocaine.

He had no prior criminal record and suffered from significant health issues requiring ongoing surgery.

The Crown sought a 30-day intermittent sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court found that the accused's age, health, guilty plea, and lack of a criminal record constituted exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the usual custodial range.

The accused was sentenced to a suspended sentence with one year of probation.

The accused was charged with 28 counts relating to the robbery of an unmarked police vehicle, including theft of firearms, ammunition, and police equipment.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a handprint on a package of paper and the accused's subsequent arrest in a stolen vehicle containing some of the stolen items.

The court found the forensic evidence unreliable and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the stolen items or committed the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, as well as possession of proceeds of crime, following the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

The accused was found in the kitchen, but no contraband was found on his person.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including an expired license plate renewal form, to establish constructive possession.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused resided at the home or had knowledge and control of the drugs and currency.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.