Biagio Del Greco

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 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.

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.

The applicant was charged with thirteen firearms-related offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence of the firearm.

Police responded to a noise complaint and encountered the applicant in a stairwell with another individual.

Officers detected a strong smell of marijuana, observed suspicious hand movements by the applicant, and conducted a pat-down search for officer safety, discovering a loaded 9mm handgun.

The court found the detention was lawful for investigative purposes and the pat-down search was justified on safety grounds.

The application was dismissed.