Bonnie L. Croll

The offender pled guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

He was a 28-year-old first-time offender with severe substance use and psychiatric disorders.

Following his arrest, he achieved sustained remission and stabilized his mental health through treatment.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding that the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts and mental health vulnerabilities warranted a community-based sentence that would not jeopardize his recovery.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, two counts of assault, and uttering threats against his common law spouse and their son.

The Crown sought to admit cross-count evidence of discreditable conduct to provide context to the abusive relationship and explain the delay in reporting.

The court admitted the evidence, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudice.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found the evidence of the spouse, children, and an independent witness to be reliable and consistent.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicants were stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently investigated for a stolen vehicle.

The police arrested the driver for driving under suspension, detained the passenger, and searched the vehicle based on the smell of burnt marijuana and the presence of two roaches, locating a loaded handgun and drugs.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and delay in providing rights to counsel, as the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the stolen vehicle investigation and the vehicle search.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon after striking her nine-year-old son with a broomstick.

At sentencing, the Crown and defence jointly proposed an absolute discharge and a 12-month peace bond.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge erred by applying a 'fitness' test rather than the stringent 'public interest' test required by Anthony-Cook.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to an absolute discharge and a peace bond, as the joint submission was not contrary to the public interest.

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.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash the discharge of the respondents on various criminal organization and conspiracy charges following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional errors by failing to consider the evidence as a whole, failing to test the evidence against the essential elements of the offences, and improperly weighing competing inferences.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge properly assessed the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence and that any alleged errors in assessing sufficiency were within his jurisdiction and not subject to prerogative review.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit assault following a severe beating of a fellow inmate at a detention centre.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an unsavoury witness (a former cellmate) and video surveillance.

The court found the witness's evidence unreliable due to his history of deceit and self-interest, and concluded that the video evidence was equivocal and supported other reasonable inferences besides guilt.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

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 father appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting the mother sole custody and primary residence of their child, as well as an $8,000 costs award.

The father argued the hearing judge erred on the facts, prejudiced him during cross-examination, improperly proceeded with a focused hearing, and erred by not appointing the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence, no prejudice in the judge's conduct, and that the father failed to object to the focused hearing or request OCL involvement in a timely manner.

The costs award was also upheld, and the father was ordered to pay $9,500 in costs for the appeal.

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.

Following convictions for aggravated sexual assault, assault with weapons, assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault with a weapon, and forcible confinement, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court found a long-standing pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive violence, substantial indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of that violence, and brutality in the predicate offence, all driven in significant part by chronic crack cocaine addiction and repeated treatment failure.

Although the Crown did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that future harm would arise through failure to control sexual impulses under s. 753(1)(b), the court held the offender met the dangerous offender criteria under ss. 753(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii).

Applying the lesser-measure analysis, the court found no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence or long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public, and imposed concurrent indeterminate sentences.

The parties met online, married in China, and the respondent sponsored the applicant to come to Canada.

The marriage broke down shortly after her arrival.

The court determined the date of separation based on credibility findings, preferring the respondent's evidence.

The applicant's claim for equalization was dismissed as the respondent's net family property was zero.

The court awarded non-compensatory spousal support of $900 per month for nine months, considering the short duration of the marriage, the immigration sponsorship agreement, and the applicant's ability to work.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint that police officers discriminated against him based on race when they arrested and charged him following a neighbour dispute.

The applicant argued the HRTO's decision was unreasonable, alleging the police response was disproportionate and influenced by racial stereotypes, and that the HRTO showed bias in its credibility assessments and drawing of adverse inferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the HRTO applied the correct legal principles, its credibility findings were entitled to high deference, and its overall decision was reasonable.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision denying him income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator had preferred the medical evidence of the respondent's physiatrist over the appellant's physiatrist, concluding the appellant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator applied the correct legal test and that weighing conflicting medical evidence does not constitute an error of law.

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.