Carolyn Otter

Trevell Greene pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm.

The aggravated assault stemmed from a home invasion robbery in which two individuals were shot multiple times.

The assault causing bodily harm occurred while in custody against another inmate.

The court balanced the sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, taking into account the offender's youth, background of systemic anti-Black racism, and the unduly harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

A total sentence of eight years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of three years and eight months.

The accused, Salman Jogiyat, was acquitted of first-degree murder but pleaded guilty to contempt of court for refusing to disclose the identities of other individuals involved in the circumstances surrounding the murder during his trial testimony, despite being ordered to do so by the court.

The court considered the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing, including deterrence and denunciation, as well as the accused's personal circumstances, including a Mild Intellectual Disability and a significant criminal record.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary term, while the defence suggested 24 to 30 months.

The court imposed a three-year term of penitentiary imprisonment, finding it proportionate and necessary for deterrence and denunciation, aligning with the established sentencing range for such contempt.

Marcus Cumsille was found guilty of offering to transfer a firearm.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, including the impact of anti-Black racism and trial delay.

Despite the Crown seeking a three-year prison sentence and the defence seeking a suspended sentence, the court imposed a 17-month sentence, reduced to a 75-day conditional sentence after credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The decision emphasized balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and considered the practical realities of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

Shemar Nelson was charged with possession of cocaine for trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime following a police operation.

The defence sought to exclude evidence based on alleged breaches of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b), and argued a lack of continuity for the seized items.

The court found no Charter breaches, ruling that the investigative detention, safety search of a satchel, and delay in advising counsel were justified by officer safety concerns and the circumstances.

The court also found the subsequent overholding of the accused was not arbitrary.

However, the court found significant discrepancies in the chain of custody and documentation of the seized evidence, including differing descriptions of items, lack of photographs, and items appearing/disappearing from the property attributed to the accused.

These issues created a reasonable doubt regarding the continuity of the cocaine and cash.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all charges.

The applicants, two of three co-accused in a large project prosecution involving a criminal organization, brought applications for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial was delayed by six weeks to accommodate the schedule of counsel for the third co-accused.

The court found that the net delay for one applicant fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

For the other applicant, the court found that the delay exceeded the ceiling but was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically case complexity and the strong public interest in holding a joint trial.

Both applications were dismissed.

K.A. sought a review of his detention on two sets of criminal charges: criminal organization/trafficking and aggravated assault.

The court granted release on the criminal organization and trafficking charges with conditions, including electronic monitoring and a surety.

However, detention was maintained for the aggravated assault charge due to overwhelming concerns on both secondary (risk to public safety given extensive violent history and nature of the index offense) and tertiary grounds (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice).

Joel Stevenson was found guilty of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a seven-year imprisonment sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or, alternatively, four years with substantial credit for pre-sentence bail conditions, emphasizing the offender's Aboriginal heritage and the application of Gladue principles.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the seriousness of the offence, finding that deterrence and denunciation were paramount.

After considering the unique systemic and background factors affecting the offender, including intergenerational trauma from residential schools and personal history of abuse and incarceration, and balancing these with the seriousness of the offence and the principle of parity with a co-accused, the court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment.

An eight-month credit was awarded for harsh pre-sentence release conditions, resulting in a net sentence of four years and four months.

The appellant appealed his conviction for drug trafficking offences and firearm-related offences, as well as seeking leave to appeal his sentence.

The conviction appeal challenged the application judge's Charter ruling regarding the sufficiency of the information to obtain for a search warrant and the application of s. 24(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors in the application judge's analysis.

On the sentence appeal, the Court granted leave and allowed the appeal in part, reducing the sentence for the s. 86(1) firearm offence from two years to one year imprisonment concurrent, as the original sentence exceeded the statutory maximum for a first offender.

The Court upheld the trial judge's characterization of the appellant as a mid-level drug dealer based on the evidence.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 rights, arguing he was arbitrarily detained and subjected to an unreasonable search and seizure.

Police detained the accused while investigating a reported break and enter.

During the detention, the accused placed a sandwich wrapper on a parked car.

After the accused was arrested for obstructing police, police found crack cocaine in the sandwich wrapper.

The court held that the accused abandoned the sandwich wrapper and thus had no reasonable expectation of privacy in it.

The court also found the investigative detention was lawful based on a 911 call.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking, possessing drugs for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing the proceeds of crime (five counts total).

The accused brought a motion under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging unreasonable delay in bringing the charges to trial.

The court analyzed the entire timeframe from the laying of charges on September 22, 2015, to the trial date of October 24-25, 2016 (just over 13 months).

The court found that the initial seven-month period from charge to trial date setting constituted neutral time as inherent time requirements of the case.

The court identified approximately two months of institutional delay in the second timeframe, which fell well below the Moran guideline of eight to ten months.

The court found minimal prejudice to the accused and concluded that the serious nature of the charges warranted a trial on the merits.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at his residence in a cocaine trafficking investigation.

The defence argued the Information to Obtain contained misleading information and failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged drug trafficking activities and the residence searched.

The court found that surveillance, intercepted communications, and investigative observations provided a reasonable basis to believe evidence of drug trafficking would be located at the residence.

The court further held that even if a Charter breach had occurred, the evidence would have been admitted under the s. 24(2) analysis.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant for his residence and vehicle, alleging that the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements, omissions, and errors that invalidated the authorization.

The court reviewed the ITO, cross‑examination of the affiant officer, and applicable principles governing review of prior authorizations.

Although the court found numerous inaccuracies and overstatements in the ITO, it concluded they resulted from carelessness rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead the issuing justice.

After excising erroneous statements and considering permissible amplification, the remaining information still established reasonable and probable grounds linking the accused to drug trafficking and connecting the residence to evidence of those offences.

The court held the search warrant was properly issued and no breach of s. 8 of the Charter occurred.

The defendant was convicted of three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine.

The court imposed a sentence of three years on count one (trafficking nine ounces), concurrent on count two (trafficking three ounces), and one year consecutive on count three (trafficking 2.1 ounces with co-accused).

The defendant received 1.5 days credit for each day of pre-trial custody.

A 109 order for ten years and a non-communication order with respect to a co-accused were also imposed.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives with proportionality and rehabilitation considerations, given the defendant's youth and first penitentiary sentence.

In this drug trafficking trial arising from Project Wanipitee, the court applied the Carter test to determine whether intercepted communications could be admitted under the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that a joint enterprise existed between the accused and others to traffic cocaine in the Durham Region.

The court identified the accused on intercepted communications through circumstantial evidence including surveillance, text message patterns, and physical movements.

The court convicted the accused of trafficking cocaine on two dates and possession of cocaine for trafficking purposes.

The court acquitted on charges related to marijuana possession and possession of cocaine at a separate location due to insufficient evidence of possession and control.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking arising from an RCMP reverse‑sting operation.

Before arraignment, the accused sought stays of proceedings alleging violations of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to delay and s. 7 based on abuse of process, including allegations that police misled superiors in obtaining authorization and intentionally withheld disclosure.

The court conducted an extensive analysis of the delay from arrest in 1997 through retrial in 2014, finding that most delay was attributable to the accused, inherent time requirements, or periods when the accused was outside the jurisdiction.

The court rejected allegations that police misconduct or nondisclosure amounted to an abuse of process and concluded the reverse‑sting operation was properly authorized and executed.

Both Charter applications were dismissed and the accused was convicted.