Biagio Del Greco

The Crown applied for a discretionary publication ban under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code to protect the identity of the complainant in an intimate partner assault case.

The accused, a former political staffer involved in the "robo-calls scandal", was the subject of media interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown failed to establish a real and substantial risk to the complainant's dignity or personal safety that would outweigh the open court principle and freedom of expression.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for violent offences including attempted murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been stable on long-acting injectable medication and was transitioning to live with his parents, who were the victims of the index offences.

While the treating psychiatrist and all parties recommended a conditional discharge, the majority of the Board concluded that the accused remained a significant threat to public safety and that a detention order was the necessary and appropriate disposition to ensure rapid readmission if his mental health decompensated.

A minority would have granted a conditional discharge.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for harassment and public mischief offences.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.

Based on the uncontroverted expert evidence of the assessing psychiatrist, the Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia and is currently untreated, poses a significant threat to public safety due to a risk of causing serious psychological harm.

The Board ordered a Detention Order at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre with conditions, including a prohibition on internet access without approval, to allow for assessment of capacity to consent to treatment and management of his risk.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for harassment and public mischief offences stemming from persistent delusional complaints against a police officer.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from untreated schizophrenia and lacks insight, poses a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of continued psychological harm to others.

The Board ordered a Detention Order at the Royal Ottawa Mental Health Centre to facilitate assessment of his capacity to consent to treatment and to manage his risk, with privileges to reside in the community once approved.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for charges including forcible confinement and sexual assault.

At the initial disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the parties presented a joint position recommending a detention order with privileges to reside in the community in approved accommodation.

The Board found that the accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention disposition with conditions, including a non-publication ban, no-contact provisions, and a firearms prohibition, balancing public safety with the accused's reintegration needs.

The court considered charges of laundering proceeds of crime, making false statements in income tax returns, tax evasion, and obtaining unentitled tax refunds or credits against Peter Pavlovich Jr. and Jessica Sauve.

The Crown alleged that the accuseds’ net worth exceeded their reported income by over $200,000, and that unreported income was derived from drug trafficking and unreported construction work.

The defence presented evidence of substantial gifts and loans from family and friends as alternative sources of funds.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the unexplained funds were unreported income or proceeds of crime, and acquitted both accused on all charges.

This criminal trial involved charges against Zekeim Ogilvie (13 offences) and Akol Akol (15 offences, including enabling escape) stemming from a shooting incident.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, cell phone data, and GPS data from a rented vehicle.

The court meticulously analyzed the identification evidence for Ogilvie and the elements of aiding and abetting for Akol.

The judge found that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for either accused on any count, emphasizing the need to avoid speculation and conjecture when drawing inferences from circumstantial evidence.

Both defendants were acquitted.

This decision addresses two mid-trial rulings in a criminal case.

First, the Crown sought to introduce the preliminary inquiry transcript of a police constable who was unable to testify due to serious illness, pursuant to s. 715 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the criteria for admission were met and exercised its discretion to admit the evidence, as there was no unfairness to the accused.

Second, the Crown sought to admit emails sent by the accused to the investigating officer.

The court determined the officer was a "person in authority" from the accused's perspective and found the emails to be voluntary, as they were unsolicited and free from threats, promises, oppression, or police trickery.

Both applications by the Crown were granted.

The Crown sought to admit recognition evidence from Det. Walrond, identifying the accused, Zekeim Ogilvie, on a video recording related to a shooting.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine threshold admissibility based on the Berhe and Hudson tests.

The court found that Det. Walrond's prior acquaintance with Mr. Ogilvie, primarily a 53-minute police interview, did not afford him a sufficient level of familiarity to provide valuable and otherwise unavailable identifying information regarding Ogilvie's gait, movement, facial features, complexion, hairline, and hairstyle.

The court also noted that the trial judge had sufficient opportunity and other evidence (like a photograph) to make their own assessment.

Consequently, the Crown's application for the admission of Det. Walrond's recognition evidence was dismissed.

Zekeim Ogilvie, charged with multiple offences related to a shooting, brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude evidence (an iPhone and its data) obtained from a vehicle search.

He argued the warrantless search, conducted under the Liquor Licence Act, violated his section 8 and 9 Charter rights due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The court examined whether Ogilvie, as a passenger, had standing to challenge the search by establishing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle.

Despite owning the iPhone found in the vehicle, the court found that he did not have an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle as a whole, given the significantly reduced privacy interest in vehicles, especially for non-owner passengers.

Consequently, the court ruled that Ogilvie lacked standing to challenge the validity of the search, and his application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Zekeim Ogilvie, faced nine firearm-related charges, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, following a traffic stop that escalated into a criminal investigation.

The court addressed preliminary issues of the accused's standing to challenge a Liquor Licence Act (LLA) search, the reasonableness of that search under section 8 of the Charter, and the admissibility of evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the initial LLA search was lawful due to the police officer's reasonable grounds, and even if there was a Charter breach, the evidence would not be excluded.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of video evidence from the accused's phone, finding its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

Ultimately, based on circumstantial evidence including the firearm's location, DNA evidence, and video recordings, the court found the accused guilty of constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

Kivi Bar Wari pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his cellmate.

Crown and Defence jointly recommended an eight-year sentence, which the court accepted.

The primary outstanding issue was the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit.

The Crown argued for standard 1.5:1 Summers credit, while the Defence sought additional enhanced Duncan credit due to unduly harsh detention conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, following R. v. Marshall, held that Duncan credit is a mitigating factor to be considered when determining the appropriate sentence, not an additional deduction after the sentence is set.

Since the joint sentencing submission had already factored in the harsh conditions, granting further enhanced credit would constitute "double accounting." The court applied the 1.5:1 Summers credit to the remaining pre-sentence custody.

The accused, Jacques Trudel, was convicted of trafficking crystal methamphetamine, possession of hydromorphone, and possession of proceeds of trafficking following a high-speed police chase and the seizure of drugs and cash.

The central issue was whether Mr. Trudel had constructive possession of the crystal methamphetamine.

The court found, based on circumstantial evidence, that the accused had knowledge and control over the drugs, given his active role in the common venture with his co-accused, his control over the vehicle's contents, and his instruction to evade police.

The defence's arguments regarding police testimony reliability and gaps in the Crown's case were rejected.

Three defendants were charged with twelve offences arising from a shooting incident at a strip mall parking lot in Ottawa on September 1, 2018.

The Crown alleged that Haji Ragab was the shooter, Paraparan was the driver of the getaway vehicle, and Hope was a passenger.

All three were charged with various firearm-related offences.

The trial judge found that while the Crown proved the three defendants were in the vehicle at the scene, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Haji Ragab was the shooter or that Paraparan was the driver.

Critically, the Crown also failed to prove that any defendant possessed the firearm, as the weapon was never recovered and the Crown could not establish that the item used was a firearm as defined by the Criminal Code.

All charges were dismissed against all defendants.

The applicants, five co-accused in a complex drug trafficking prosecution, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable trial delay.

The anticipated delay was approximately 26 months, exceeding the 18-month ceiling for provincial court trials.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the case was 'particularly complex' under the Jordan framework due to voluminous disclosure (over 75,000 pages), multiple judicial authorizations, and the nature of the joint prosecution.

The court also found that the Crown had developed and followed a concrete plan to minimize delay.

The applicants brought a motion challenging the validity of three general warrants (dated June 30, August 13, and October 8, 2015) authorizing video surveillance and covert entries at 691 Bank Street in Ottawa as part of Project Step, a drug trafficking investigation.

The central issue was whether an Ontario Court of Justice judge had jurisdiction to authorize video surveillance under section 487.01(4) of the Criminal Code, or whether such authorization required a Superior Court of Justice judge.

The court found that the applicants had standing to challenge the warrants based on a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hallway, albeit attenuated.

The court determined that video surveillance warrants must be signed by a Superior Court judge, not an Ontario Court of Justice judge, rendering the June 30 warrant invalid.

However, the court severed the covert entry portion of the June 30 warrant, which remained valid.

The court also quashed the portions of the August 13 and October 8 warrants authorizing entries into unit C, as the information supporting those entries was derived from the unlawful hallway surveillance.

Despite these findings, the court admitted all evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the good faith conduct of police and the attenuated privacy interests involved.

Procès criminel portant sur des allégations d’agression sexuelle, de contacts sexuels et d’invitation à des contacts sexuels contre une enfant de moins de seize ans dans un contexte familial.

Le tribunal a appliqué le cadre de W.(D.) et a conclu que la plaignante était crédible malgré des incohérences périphériques, son jeune âge au moment des événements et un délai de divulgation.

La défense fondée sur l’absence d’occasion, soit que l’accusé n’aurait jamais été seul avec la plaignante, a été rejetée comme improbable et contraire à l’expérience de la vie et au bon sens.

Les éléments des articles 271, 151 et 152 du Code criminel ont été jugés établis hors de tout doute raisonnable.

En raison de l’ordonnance de non-publication, les renseignements identificatoires doivent être protégés.

The defendants brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking to stay proceedings on the grounds that their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The total delay from arrest to anticipated trial conclusion was 21 months and 6 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling by 3 months and 6 days.

The Crown conceded there was no defence delay, waiver, or discrete event.

The court found the case was not particularly complex and that the Crown's decision to join multiple defendants together late in the proceedings, and subsequent partial severance, created unnecessary delay.

The court granted the application and stayed the proceedings.

The court acquitted Ms. Boudreau of drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime charges due to insufficient evidence proving her knowledge, consent, or control over the seized items.

Despite some personal documents and clothing belonging to Ms. Boudreau being found at the residence, the Crown failed to establish her presence at the residence on the date of the search or her continuous residency during the period the drugs and money were present.

Surveillance evidence did not identify her, and there was no fingerprint evidence.

The court found only impermissible speculative inferences to connect her to the seized items, thus failing to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The co-accused brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on charges of possession of marijuana and heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to establish constructive or joint possession, as the co-accused was not present during the search of the residence where the drugs and currency were found.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the drug charges, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control based on the open visibility of the drugs and the presence of her personal belongings.

However, the court granted the motion regarding the proceeds of crime charge, as the currency was hidden and there was insufficient evidence to infer her knowledge and control.