B.A. Allen

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace following an altercation with a bouncer at a nightclub.

The Crown alleged the accused struck the bouncer with a beer bottle unprovoked.

The accused claimed he was surrounded by bouncers, punched in the face, and struck the bouncer with his elbow in self-defence.

The court found the Crown witnesses' evidence inconsistent and unreliable, while the accused's testimony was credible.

The court held the Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found drugs in a safe inside an apartment.

At the conclusion of the Crown's case, the defence moved for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, finding that while there was some circumstantial evidence of control via a key found on a keychain used by the accused, there was no evidence from which a jury could infer the accused had knowledge of the cocaine hidden in the safe.

The motion was granted and a directed verdict of acquittal was ordered.

The accused, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought an application seeking disclosure of the identity of a confidential source.

The accused argued the source acted as a police agent rather than a confidential informant by engaging in drug transactions during the investigation.

After applying the Garofoli Step 6 procedure and holding an in camera hearing, the court concluded the source acted solely as a confidential informant and was entitled to informer privilege.

The application was dismissed.

The offenders were convicted of fraud over $5,000 in relation to a large-scale mortgage fraud scheme involving properties owned by the elderly father of one of the offenders.

The total loss to the title insurer was over $3.3 million.

The Crown sought three-year prison sentences and a restitution order against the son.

The court found that both offenders were suitable candidates for conditional sentences, imposing terms of two years less a day with house arrest and curfew conditions.

The court declined to order restitution against the son due to his destitution and subservient role, but imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture against both offenders based on the specific fraudulent funds they had possessed or controlled, giving them 20 years to pay.

The accused was charged with robbery with an imitation firearm, forcible confinement, and escaping lawful custody.

The robbery charges stemmed from an incident at a hotel party, where the Crown relied heavily on eyewitness identification evidence.

The court found the identification evidence unreliable due to inconsistencies, fleeting observations, and the influence of a photo line-up.

The escape custody charge arose from the accused fleeing police at his high school.

The court acquitted the accused on this charge because the arresting officers failed to promptly inform him of the reasons for his arrest, rendering the custody unlawful.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused was convicted of two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm after speeding through a red light and colliding with two vehicles, injuring both drivers.

The court considered the accused's difficult upbringing, lengthy criminal record, and current 64-month sentence for unrelated offences.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence to run concurrently with his existing sentence, along with a 12-month driving prohibition.

The applicant, facing extradition to the U.S. on multi-million dollar fraud and conspiracy charges, sought a review of a previous decision denying him interim release.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a significantly increased financial pledge from five sureties, pre-paid rent demonstrating community ties, and the proposed use of an ankle monitor.

Concluding that the flight risk was sufficiently mitigated, the court granted interim release on strict conditions, including house arrest and electronic monitoring.

During a criminal trial for sexual offences against his stepdaughter, the accused was cross-examined by the Crown on a written statement he had provided to a Children's Aid Society worker.

The defence objected, arguing the worker was a person in authority and a voluntariness voir dire was required.

The court found that the CAS worker was a person in authority because the accused reasonably believed she had the power to compel the statement and influence proceedings.

However, the court declined to hold a voluntariness voir dire at that late stage of the trial due to prejudice to the accused, and instead excluded the evidence related to the statement.

Applications for a mistrial and stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The accused applied for a bail review after being denied bail on nine firearm-related charges.

The accused argued there was a material change in circumstances based on a firearm property report indicating blank bullets were used, and a new proposed plan of supervision involving his common law spouse as a surety.

The court found that the report did not materially change the Crown's case and that the new supervision plan was deficient.

The court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the accused would re-offend and that his detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The police seized 554 grams of methamphetamine and $2,000 from a hotel suite rented by the offender.

The court weighed the aggravating factor of commercial mid-level trafficking against the mitigating factor of the offender's 15-year drug addiction.

The offender was sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment, reduced to 80 days after credit for pre-trial custody, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with firearms, drug, and driving offences following police surveillance, a vehicle stop, and an apartment search.

The court found that the accused did not know unmarked police vehicles were pursuing him when he fled an intersection, believing instead he was escaping gang violence.

Furthermore, the Crown failed to prove the accused had constructive possession of a firearm and marijuana found in a friend's apartment.

The accused was acquitted of all charges, including dangerous driving and mischief to property, as the Crown failed to prove the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking 4.95 grams of MDMA after selling it to an undercover officer via a Craigslist ad.

The Crown sought a six-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court found that the mitigating factors, including the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, and strong rehabilitative prospects, constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, along with a weapons prohibition and forfeiture of the seized money.

The accused was convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after pleading guilty to simple possession.

The accused, an addict, possessed 1103 'hits' of heroin, an amount exceeding personal use, and trafficked to his girlfriend.

Considering his extensive criminal record and the paramount principle of general deterrence for heroin trafficking, the court sentenced the accused to 3.5 years in a penitentiary, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible, brought an application for a writ of habeas corpus with mandamus in aid to review his detention at Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care and order his immediate transfer to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH).

The Ontario Review Board had ordered his transfer to CAMH 'forthwith', but he had been waiting seven months due to a shortage of secure forensic beds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not established a deprivation of liberty caused specifically by the delay, and that the ORB order provided lawful authority for his continued interim detention at Waypoint until a bed became available at CAMH.

The accused applied for a bail review after being denied release on secondary and tertiary grounds following his arrest for firearms, assault, and theft charges.

The accused proposed his mother and uncle as sureties.

The reviewing judge found the proposed plan of supervision was weak, given the sureties' lack of knowledge about the accused's activities, substance abuse issues, and the seriousness of the charges.

The court concluded that detention remained justified on both secondary and tertiary grounds, and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a young child.

The police videotaped the initial interviews with the child complainants but negligently failed to record the audio.

The defence brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing the lost evidence impaired the accused's right to make full answer and defence under s. 7.

The court found unacceptable negligence by the police resulting in a s. 7 breach, but denied the stay as the defence failed to show irreparable prejudice.

At trial, the court found significant inconsistencies and credibility issues in the children's evidence, raising a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The 83-year-old offender was convicted of historical sexual offences against his stepdaughter and niece, committed between 1969 and 1997.

The abuse of the stepdaughter involved frequent, escalating sexual acts including full intercourse over five years while she was between the ages of four and nine.

The court found the offender's position of trust, the young age of the victims, the prolonged duration, and the devastating impact on the victims to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 5 years and 45 days in a penitentiary.

The accused was arrested with 21.91 grams of heroin and pleaded guilty to simple possession.

The trial proceeded on the issue of whether the possession was for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused admitted he intended to deliver some of the heroin to his girlfriend, which the court found met the statutory definition of trafficking.

Furthermore, relying on expert police evidence regarding heroin pricing and consumption, the court found the accused possessed the drugs for the purpose of trafficking for profit to support his own addiction.

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused, charged with multiple offences including assault, sexual assault, and break and enter against his wife, applied to sever the pre-2014 assault and sexual assault counts from the 2014 break and enter counts.

The court applied the criteria from R. v. Last and found a factual nexus between the charges, as the earlier offences provided context for the later ones.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured a joint trial and dismissed the application for severance.

The accused, charged with firearms offences, brought a Charter s. 8 application challenging the validity of a search warrant executed at a residence where loaded firearms and ammunition were seized.

The court found the search warrant invalid due to insufficient corroboration of the confidential informant's information regarding the presence of the firearms at the time of the search, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court admitted the evidence, finding the police acted in good faith and the serious nature of the offences favoured adjudication on the merits.