Bonnie L. Croll

The applicant, D.P., sought a review of a detention order for multiple sexual assault charges.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring a de novo review of the detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the proposed bail plan, even with electronic monitoring and increased surety, insufficient to address public safety concerns given the nature of the alleged serial sexual assaults and the sureties' inability to supervise.

The court also found that releasing the applicant would erode public confidence in the administration of justice due to the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the horrifying circumstances, despite the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on detention centers.

The application for review of the detention order was dismissed.

The applicant, P.S., sought a review of a detention order.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo bail review.

The applicant proposed a new release plan with three sureties, strict house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court distinguished the case from R. v. Hastings, noting the applicant's lack of criminal record, time spent in custody, and the general increased risk of COVID-19 in detention facilities.

The court found the proposed plan, including significant surety pledges and electronic monitoring, sufficient to address secondary ground concerns.

The applicant was released on strict conditions.

This criminal trial involved three accused charged with various firearm-related offences following a shooting incident.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video surveillance, expert evidence on "characteristics of an armed person," and gunshot residue (GSR) analysis.

The court acquitted two accused, Sentoree Kamara and Shaquille Woodcock, finding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly noting the limitations of the "characteristics of an armed person" evidence and potential GSR contamination.

However, the court found Shierine Shkais guilty of possession of a firearm, concluding that her questions about "minimums" while detained, combined with the firearm being found in her purse, indicated the requisite knowledge.

Jeffrey Chan and Alfred Nhan were charged with importing Fentanyl, attempted possession for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The case relied on circumstantial evidence.

The court found insufficient evidence to convict either accused of importing Fentanyl.

Jeffrey Chan was acquitted of all charges, as the Crown failed to prove constructive possession or knowledge of the Fentanyl or proceeds of crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Alfred Nhan was found guilty of attempted possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, based on his agitation when unable to retrieve the package, excitement upon its delivery, fingerprints on cash, and the high value of the drugs and cash found in his residence.

Jose Patricio Serrano and Victor Samaniego were found guilty by a jury of possession of a loaded restricted firearm.

Samaniego initiated aggressive conduct at a nightclub, displayed a firearm, and passed it to Serrano, who then took it into the club and later attempted to discard it when approached by police.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the public nature of the offence, the loaded firearm with a removed serial number, and alcohol consumption.

Mitigating factors included Serrano's dated criminal record, remorse, and family support, and Samaniego's lack of prior record, remorse, and family support.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing purposes in firearms cases.

Serrano was sentenced to 31 months and 3 weeks imprisonment, and Samaniego to 45 months imprisonment, after accounting for pre-trial custody and house arrest credits.

Ancillary orders included lifetime weapons prohibitions and DNA orders.

The applicants, charged with fraud and conspiracy, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to anticipated trial completion was 60.5 months, significantly exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

While a previous s. 11(b) application was dismissed, finding the case complex and acknowledging transitional circumstances, a subsequent 11-month adjournment was caused by the unavailability of judges due to medical reasons and systemic resource shortages.

The court found that while judicial illness is a discrete exceptional circumstance, the extended 11-month delay was primarily attributable to scarce judicial resources, which does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance under the Jordan framework.

Consequently, the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay, and the applications for a stay of proceedings were granted.

The appellant, Valentine Ngoddy, appealed his conviction for sexually assaulting a developmentally delayed complainant.

The complainant did not testify at trial, and her hearsay statement was admitted for its truth.

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, found that the trial judge erred in admitting the hearsay statement.

The court determined that the statement lacked sufficient threshold reliability, as factors such as spontaneity were overemphasized, repeated assertions were improperly used as corroboration, and the absence of a motive to fabricate was incorrectly treated as a positive indicator of reliability.

Furthermore, the court found no functional alternative to cross-examination, given the inconsistencies in the complainant's various statements and her cognitive limitations.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed his sentence for criminal harassment and failure to comply with an undertaking, arguing the sentencing judge erred by relying on unadmitted allegations in the pre-sentence report (PSR) and in assessing a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court found the sentencing judge erred in principle by considering unproven abusive and controlling behaviour from the PSR.

However, despite this error, the court conducted a fresh determination of the sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the appellant's disregard for court orders and the impact on his child, and mitigating factors like his lack of criminal record and rehabilitation efforts.

The court concluded that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest due to the need for general deterrence and denunciation in cases involving repeated breaches of court orders in acrimonious family breakdowns.

The appeal on sentence was dismissed, affirming the original suspended sentence and 12 months' probation.

Christian Dobbs, a police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm, later reduced to assault simpliciter, against Raymond Costain during an arrest.

The central issue was whether the force used by Officer Dobbs was excessive under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found Mr. Costain's evidence unreliable due to numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.

The video evidence, while depicting shocking force, was deemed inconclusive regarding Mr. Costain's resistance.

Given the evidentiary vacuum and the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found reasonable doubt that the force applied was excessive and acquitted the officer.

The Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for failing to comply with a recognizance.

The grounds of appeal included unreasonable verdict, errors in finding breach of recognizance and mens rea, failure of the trial judge to ensure full answer and defence for a self-represented accused, and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact and mens rea were reasonable, that the assistance provided to the self-represented appellant was adequate, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for uttering a threat, arguing his guilty plea was not informed due to a mistaken belief that a conditional discharge was guaranteed following a judicial pre-trial.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the appellant understood the sentence was not guaranteed.

However, the court allowed the appeal against sentence, concluding that the trial judge erred in principle by misapprehending the severe immigration consequences of a suspended sentence.

The suspended sentence was vacated and replaced with an absolute discharge.

Sentencing decision following convictions for criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and multiple counts of mischief endangering life arising from a fatal residential fire in a rooming house.

The offender knowingly failed to comply with Fire Code requirements and misled a fire inspector regarding the intended use of the premises, continuing to rent rooms to unrelated tenants without required safety retrofits.

A tenant died from smoke inhalation after a fire started from an unattended hot plate, and another tenant suffered burns and smoke inhalation.

The court held that the offender’s deliberate disregard of statutory safety requirements and deception of authorities constituted a marked and substantial departure from reasonable conduct.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for landlords who endanger tenants, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence of three years and ordered restitution to surviving victims.

The offender was sentenced after being convicted of multiple firearms and drug-related offences, including possession of a prohibited loaded handgun, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police discovered the firearm, ammunition, marijuana, trafficking paraphernalia, and nearly $30,000 in cash during the execution of a search warrant at the offender’s residence.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors arising from the dangerous combination of firearms and drug trafficking against mitigating factors including the offender’s lengthy period without criminal involvement, stable employment, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while applying the principle that a first penitentiary sentence should be set at the lowest appropriate level, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

Consecutive terms were imposed for the drug trafficking and proceeds offences.

Following a fatal residential fire in Toronto, the Crown prosecuted the property owners for criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and mischief endangering life.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly operated an unsafe rooming house in violation of Ontario Fire Code requirements despite repeated warnings and inspection notices from the Toronto Fire Service.

The court found that the property was in fact being operated as a rooming house rather than a single-family dwelling and that the landlord deliberately misrepresented the tenancy structure to avoid costly fire‑safety retrofits.

The failure to install required fire‑safety systems and to prevent cooking in bedrooms constituted a marked and substantial departure from the reasonable standard of care and was a significant contributing cause of the fatal fire.

One accused landlord was convicted of criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and multiple counts of mischief endangering life, while the co‑owner spouse was acquitted due to insufficient evidence of knowledge or participation.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence arising from his arrest for cocaine trafficking and the subsequent search of a condominium unit where police seized nine kilograms of cocaine.

He alleged breaches of ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms relating to unlawful arrest, seizure of keys and a key fob, warrantless retrieval of fob access information, warrantless entry into a condominium unit, and alleged deficiencies in the Information to Obtain a search warrant.

The court held that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on surveillance of a suspected drug transaction and subsequent flight.

While the warrantless entry into the condominium unit violated s. 8 because exigent circumstances were not established, the subsequent search warrant remained valid after excision of impugned material.

Applying the s. 24(2) analysis, the court admitted the seized cocaine, finding the Charter breach modest and the evidence highly reliable and essential to the Crown’s case.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to multiple offences including possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000, and possession of a counterfeit mark.

Police surveillance and search warrants uncovered more than half a kilogram of cocaine, trafficking paraphernalia, and substantial cash proceeds, demonstrating a commercial drug trafficking operation.

The court considered significant aggravating factors including the large quantity of drugs and the commission of further trafficking-related offences while on bail.

Strong mitigating factors included exceptional post‑offence rehabilitation, academic achievement, and strict bail conditions amounting to lengthy house arrest.

A global sentence of three years’ imprisonment was imposed with substantial credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 14 months additional custody.

The offender’s 50% interest in a condominium used in relation to the drug offence was forfeited as offence‑related property, while the Crown’s request for a fine in lieu of forfeiture for funds previously released for legal fees was denied.

The Crown applied under s. 490(3) of the Criminal Code for a further detention order for 32 computer servers seized during the execution of search warrants in a large-scale investigation into online distribution of child pornography.

The investigation involved an extensive network of RAID-configured servers hosting massive volumes of data, more than 60,000 global users, encrypted files, and international financial transactions.

Evidence established that the technical architecture required specialized forensic infrastructure and multinational cooperation to analyze the data and identify offenders and victims.

The respondent argued the investigation had not progressed quickly enough to justify further detention.

The court held that the investigation was exceptionally complex within the meaning of s. 490(3) and that the police had acted diligently.

Continued detention of the seized servers was therefore warranted.

The applicant brought a motion to impute income to the respondent for purposes of calculating child support and section 7 expenses for seven children.

The respondent operated a corporation and claimed minimal personal income, but provided incomplete and inadequate financial disclosure.

The court examined corporate bank deposits, director’s fees, retained earnings, and unsupported corporate deductions, and applied s. 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines to determine whether corporate funds were available for support.

Finding that the respondent failed to justify the deductions or demonstrate that corporate income was unavailable, the court imputed income of $164,525.

Retroactive child support was ordered along with proportional section 7 expense contributions and full recovery costs due to the respondent’s failure to provide proper disclosure.

The appellant appealed a spousal support order following a second trial that awarded the respondent $1,900 per month in indefinite spousal support and ordered payment of costs.

The appellant argued the trial judge made numerous factual errors, including findings relating to the respondent’s employment decisions, credibility, and entitlement to compensatory support.

The court held that the trial judge’s factual findings, including that the respondent’s decision to leave employment and relocate was reasonable and that she suffered economic disadvantage due to the traditional marriage roles, were supported by the evidence.

Applying principles of appellate deference to support determinations, the court found no misapprehension of evidence or error in law.

The compensatory support award and costs order were therefore upheld.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of a firearm with an altered serial number.

The firearm was discovered in an apartment where children were present during a domestic disturbance while the offender was intoxicated.

The court determined that the appropriate sentence absent the mandatory minimum was less than two years and followed the reasoning in Smickle that the three‑year mandatory minimum under s. 95(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional.

A conditional sentence was unavailable because the offence constituted a serious personal injury offence under the statutory definition.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, and strong evidence of rehabilitation and parental responsibilities, the court imposed a short custodial sentence to be served intermittently followed by probation.