Bonnie L. Croll

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.

On a pre-trial application in a cocaine importation prosecution, the accused sought exclusion of a Panamanian laboratory report identifying the seized substance as cocaine, together with related foreign investigative documents obtained under mutual legal assistance procedures.

The court held that s. 36(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act permits admission of foreign records containing opinion evidence and does not exclude expert opinion evidence from its scope.

Applying the court’s gatekeeper role and reasoning by analogy to analyst-certificate jurisprudence, the court found no evidentiary basis to doubt the accuracy or reliability of the Panamanian testing process.

The court further held that s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code did not govern because the evidence was tendered under the MLACMA, and in any event the Mohan criteria were satisfied.

The application to exclude both the expert report and the other Panamanian materials was dismissed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a summary conviction after learning that his guilty plea had triggered severe immigration consequences, including cancellation of a stay of removal.

Applying the governing extension-of-time factors, the court held that the applicant did not form a genuine intention to appeal until the immigration consequences became known, and that the delay was adequately explained by language barriers, mental health issues, hospitalization, and the time required to obtain records and transcripts.

The court further found arguable merit in the proposed appeal because the record did not indicate any plea inquiry addressing immigration consequences.

In the interests of justice, the extension of time was granted.

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 applicant sought sole custody, child support, and an equalization payment following a 15-year marriage.

The respondent, who had not paid child support since separation and was found in contempt of court for selling a property in violation of a court order, sought sole or joint custody of one child and spousal support.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, ordered retroactive and prospective child support, and calculated the equalization payment and other reimbursements owed by the respondent.

To satisfy the total amount owed of $441,378.68, the court ordered the respondent's property, the transfer of which was set aside in a companion decision, to be vested in the applicant.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion to set aside the transfer of a property by her former husband to three tenants, alleging it was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat her family law claims.

The transfer occurred shortly before trial and in violation of a court order prohibiting the sale.

The court found numerous 'badges of fraud' and rejected the purchasers' claims that they bought the property in good faith without notice.

The court granted summary judgment, setting aside the transfer and vesting the property in the applicant.

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 parties separated in 2006, and the applicant father has had sole custody of their three children since 2007.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child support, and the transfer of the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought spousal support.

The court found that an equal division of net family property would be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act due to the respondent's reckless depletion of property by ignoring debts that resulted in liens on the home, and the applicant's disproportionate assumption of debts to support the family.

The court ordered retroactive child support, to be satisfied by transferring the respondent's remaining equity in the home to the applicant.

Ongoing child support was ordered at a reduced amount, and the respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed as child support takes priority and the applicant lacked the means to pay.

The applicant brought a motion for interim disbursements, a preservation order, and to lift a stay of enforcement of a temporary support order.

The court found that the respondent had been reticent in providing financial disclosure, necessitating the applicant to incur significant expert and legal fees to determine his true income.

To level the playing field, the court ordered the respondent to pay $60,000 as an interim disbursement under Rule 24(12) of the Family Law Rules.

The court declined to make a preservation order and ordered that the stay of enforcement remain in place, provided the interim disbursement is paid.

The parties separated after a 32-year marriage marked by domestic violence.

The applicant wife sought an unequal division of net family property, arguing the respondent husband forced her to sign a joint line of credit and recklessly depleted the funds both before and after separation.

The court found the husband's conduct unconscionable and granted an unequal division, ordering that the wife receive half the proceeds of the matrimonial home without deduction for the line of credit debt.

The court also addressed occupation rent, setting it off against the husband's mortgage payments, and ordered the husband's lawyer to return trust funds improperly disbursed to the husband.

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.

The accused applied under ss. 278.1–278.9 of the Criminal Code for production of various third‑party records relating to the complainant in a historic sexual assault prosecution.

At Stage 1, the court assessed whether the requested records were likely relevant and whether production to the court was necessary in the interests of justice.

The judge found likely relevance only for limited records from the Hospital for Sick Children, the Ontario Disability Support Program, and the complainant’s family medical clinic, and ordered those records produced to the court for review.

After reviewing the records at Stage 2, the court concluded that none contained information linking the accused to the complainant’s mental health issues or assisting with the timeline of events, and directed that the matter proceed by agreed statement of facts reflecting that absence.

The accused was found guilty of multiple offences, including aggravated assault, after violently shaking his infant daughter, causing permanent and severe brain damage.

He also assaulted his girlfriend and the infant in a separate incident weeks prior.

The court rejected the application of the Kienapple principle to the assault and choking charges.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 8 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a 1.25 to 1 credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 5 years going forward.