Baltman

The offender was found guilty of human trafficking, procuring, and multiple violent offences including assault, forcible confinement, choking, and sexual assault against an 18-year-old victim.

The offender controlled the victim's sex work, took her earnings, and subjected her to severe physical and psychological abuse over a year.

The court considered the Tang/Miller factors for human trafficking and the offender's background.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 11 years imprisonment, including 9 years for human trafficking and 2 years consecutive for choking, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore his action to the trial list after it was struck for delay.

The action, which arose from a 2012 incident alleging anti-Black racism during a fraud investigation, had been administratively dismissed in 2019 and struck from the trial list in 2020.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the extensive delays, which were largely due to counsel's inattention.

Furthermore, the court held that the defendants would suffer prejudice due to fading memories over the ten-year period since the incident.

The motion was denied and the action was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit a KGB statement from an alleged victim of human trafficking who had disappeared and was unavailable to testify.

The defence conceded necessity but disputed threshold reliability.

The court ruled the statement inadmissible, finding that the inability to cross-examine the declarant was a significant obstacle, particularly given her potential motive to fabricate, as she gave the statement while under arrest and her charges were dropped immediately afterward.

The court also found the corroborative evidence insufficient to establish substantive reliability.

The applicant, one of four individuals charged with first-degree murder, brought applications to sever his trial from his co-accused or, alternatively, to admit a co-accused's post-arrest statement as hearsay.

The applicant, alleged to be the second getaway driver, sought to rely on the co-accused's statement that he was highly intoxicated on the morning of the murder to support defences of lack of intent and abandonment.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding the proposed evidence was largely inadmissible self-serving hearsay and lacked proximity to the offence.

The court also dismissed the hearsay application, concluding the co-accused was a highly unreliable source, the statement contained double hearsay, lacked corroboration, and its admission would be highly prejudicial to the other co-accused.

The offender, a 21-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced for possessing a loaded firearm and 85 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the deadly nature of fentanyl and the danger posed by the loaded firearm during a police raid.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of prior record, supportive family, and the impact of anti-Black racism and socio-economic disadvantage on his background.

The court also factored in harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

A total sentence of 6 years was imposed after applying the totality principle, with 55 months of enhanced pre-sentence credit, leaving 17 months to serve.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter for the starvation death of his 21-month-old daughter, who was in his sole care.

The offender absconded prior to the sentencing hearing, and the court proceeded in his absence pursuant to section 475(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the prolonged and deliberate withholding of food and water constituted extreme child abuse by a parent in a position of trust, the court sentenced the offender to 15 years' imprisonment.

During a first-degree murder trial, the accused brought a motion to exclude evidence of a GPS tracking device found on the deceased's vehicle.

The accused argued there was insufficient evidence connecting them to the device.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the device, including the presence of the tracking app on cellphones found near two of the accused upon arrest.

The court admitted the GPS data from the Greater Toronto Area but excluded data from Montreal, finding the latter had low probative value and was potentially prejudicial.

The accused, charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing the death of his 21-month-old daughter, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude two statements he made to police.

He alleged breaches of his rights under ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, and argued the statements were not voluntary.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the accused understood his jeopardy, was not arbitrarily detained, and was provided reasonable opportunities to consult with counsel.

The court also found the statements were voluntary, as the accused possessed an operating mind and the conditions were not oppressive.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused, the sole caregiver for his 21-month-old daughter, was charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death after she died of severe malnutrition and dehydration.

The accused conceded he failed to provide the necessaries of life but argued he was incapacitated by a head injury sustained eight days prior to her death.

The court rejected this defence, finding no evidence of incapacity and noting the child's deterioration would have occurred over weeks.

The court found the accused's failure to provide nourishment was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The Crown sought to call four expert witnesses in a trial for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death of a 21-month-old child.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the experts based on their independence and impartiality.

The court admitted the evidence of the coroner, forensic pathologist, and neuropathologist, finding them independent.

However, the court excluded the evidence of the paediatric nutritionist, who testified he would never work for the defence and viewed defence experts as 'hired guns', demonstrating an inherent bias in favour of the Crown.

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for its witnesses to testify via videoconference at a manslaughter trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused opposed the application and sought an adjournment, arguing that a fair trial required in-person testimony.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that virtual testimony with appropriate safeguards accommodated both public health interests and the accused's right to a fair trial.

The court dismissed the accused's adjournment requests, noting the trial had already been delayed multiple times and the proposed appeal of the virtual testimony ruling was highly speculative.

The defendant broadcaster brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation action arising from a satirical television program broadcast in Pakistan and rebroadcast online.

The program allegedly accused the plaintiffs of engaging in immigration fraud related to a Canada-Pakistan Trade Fair, which the plaintiffs claim caused artists' visas to be denied and forced the cancellation of a concert.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the broadcast was defamatory, whether the action was barred by the Libel and Slander Act given the technical nature of the internet broadcasts, and whether the broadcast caused the alleged damages.

The court also declined to dismiss the action for delay.

The applicant father brought a motion for access in a longstanding family law dispute involving allegations of parental alienation.

The court found that the respondent mother had been wrongfully withholding access and obstructing the reunification process with the court-appointed therapist.

The court ordered both parties to continue attending co-parenting sessions, follow the therapist's recommendations, and directed that no further motions be brought without leave.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs due to her refusal to work toward reunification.

The applicant father brought a motion regarding access to the parties' 8-year-old daughter.

Previous orders had found the respondent mother wrongfully withheld access and directed the parties to engage a parenting mediator.

Following reports that the mother was the major obstacle to reunification and that recent visits were marked by the child's violent behaviour, the father sought to suspend the access schedule until the parties received support from a psychotherapist.

The court ordered the parties to immediately engage the psychotherapist, with costs apportioned by income, and suspended the access schedule pending further recommendations.

The mother was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation.

The plaintiff moved to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant did not oppose the relief but requested a conditional order.

The court applied the 'middle ground' approach, conditionally striking the jury notice so the trial could proceed as a judge-alone trial, but allowing the jury notice to be automatically reinstated if jury trials resume in Peel Region by the time the case is called.

Following their separation, the parties brought a motion to determine ownership and possession of their two dogs, Jazz and Jetta.

The court rejected the traditional, narrow approach to pet ownership that focuses solely on who paid the purchase price, adopting instead a broader, contemporary approach that considers the full context of the parties' relationship with the animals, including care and maintenance.

Finding that both parties were significantly vested in the dogs and had contributed equally to their upkeep, the court concluded the dogs were jointly owned.

As the parties could not share the dogs, the court divided them, awarding Jazz to the respondent and Jetta to the applicant.

The applicant father sought to increase access to his 8-year-old daughter following a period of estrangement and resistance.

The court reviewed the joint recommendations of the family's mediator and the child's psychotherapist, who noted the child's severe anxiety and enmeshment with the respondent mother.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule leading to full weekend visits, along with behavioral expectations for the child and mandatory co-parenting and individual therapies for the parents.

The accused, facing firearms charges, brought pre-trial motions challenging the validity of a search warrant and a warrantless search of an Instagram account under s. 8 of the Charter.

They sought further disclosure and leave to cross-examine the affiant, arguing that a confidential informant was actually a police agent.

The court dismissed the disclosure and cross-examination motions, finding no evidence to support the police agent theory.

The court upheld the search warrant, concluding the information provided by informants was compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court also dismissed the challenge to the Instagram search, finding the accused lost his reasonable expectation of privacy by accepting a stranger's follow request.

The applicant father sought to expand his access to his 8-year-old daughter to a full weekend with a 'black-out' period preventing communication with the respondent mother.

The child had been strongly resisting access visits, which the court found was tolerated and potentially encouraged by the mother.

The court ordered the parties to continue working with a parenting mediator to gradually increase the frequency and length of visits.

The court also ordered the mother to take assertive steps and impose tangible consequences to manage the child's behaviour and promote the access visits, warning that a black-out period would be considered if access did not improve.

The offender, a 26-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty by a jury of importing nearly two kilograms of heroin into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 13 years, while the defence proposed 9 to 11 years.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, community service, and counselling as mitigating factors against the severe aggravating nature of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to 10.5 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with mandatory weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.