C. Bottomley

The accused was charged with second-degree murder after stabbing and killing his husband.

He proceeded to trial before a judge alone.

The defence argued the accused should be found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, relying on two forensic psychiatrists who opined he was experiencing psychosis at the time of the killing.

The court found the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time but held that the defence had not established on a balance of probabilities that he was incapable of appreciating the moral wrongfulness of his actions, as the expert opinions relied heavily on inadmissible hearsay.

The court further found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent for murder, finding him guilty of second-degree murder.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and refusing to provide a breath sample after his vehicle plunged into Lake Ontario, resulting in the death of a passenger.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused was driving.

The court accepted the accused's testimony that he and the deceased had switched seats prior to the accident, raising a reasonable doubt as to identity.

The court also found that the accused's symptoms of impairment were equally consistent with hypothermia, and that the breath demand was not unequivocal.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was driving a sports car at speeds up to 163 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on a highway, shortly after passing two motorcycles.

As he approached an intersection with a green light, a vehicle turned left into his path, resulting in a collision that killed three people and injured two others.

The court found the accused guilty of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm, concluding his excessive speed near an intersection was a marked departure from the standard of care.

However, the court acquitted him of criminal negligence, finding a reasonable doubt that his conduct amounted to a marked and substantial departure showing wanton or reckless disregard.

The applicants, alleged members of the 'Five Point Generals' criminal organization, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of Tracking Data Warrants, Transmission Data Recording Warrants, and Part VI wiretap authorizations.

Two applicants argued there were insufficient grounds to link them to specific phone numbers, while the others argued they should not have been named in the Information to Obtain (ITO) as the conditions under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code were not met.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the police had reasonable grounds to believe the phone numbers were linked to the applicants and that there was sufficient evidence of association with the criminal organization to justify naming the other applicants in the ITO.

The accused brought a pretrial motion for a stay of proceedings, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption of unreasonableness by demonstrating that the matter was a "particularly complex case" involving extensive wiretap evidence, multiple accused, and voluminous disclosure.

The court concluded that the Crown had a reasonable plan to manage the complexity and dismissed the application for a stay.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit the murders of two victims in a planned home invasion arranged by a third party seeking the deaths of her parents.

The accused played a pivotal role by recruiting a shooter, arranging transportation, and driving armed participants to the residence while coordinating entry.

The conspiracy culminated in execution-style shootings that killed one victim and seriously injured the other.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the calculated nature of the plot and the accused’s extensive firearms record and prior murder conviction.

The accused was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment concurrent to an existing life sentence, with no credit for pre-sentence custody and with delayed parole eligibility requiring service of half the sentence.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging unreasonable delay in the period following the initial trial date.

The court examined the approximately eighteen‑month period between the Charter exclusion ruling and the eventual sentencing and forfeiture proceedings.

Applying the factors from Supreme Court jurisprudence on delay, the court found the delay largely attributable to inherent case requirements, judicial deliberation time, scheduling conflicts, and the availability of counsel and court resources.

The applicant had not previously raised concerns about delay and demonstrated minimal prejudice from bail conditions or scheduling impacts.

The court concluded that the delay did not violate the applicant’s right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court sentenced an offender for firearm and drug trafficking offences arising from the operation of a large marihuana processing and distribution enterprise.

The offender possessed a handgun with accessible ammunition in his bedroom at the location used for drug processing and packaging.

The court held the firearm functioned as a tool of the drug trade and imposed consecutive sentences for the drug trafficking and firearm offences, rejecting the joint submission for a fully concurrent global sentence.

The offender’s request for additional credit based on alleged stringent bail conditions was denied.

The court granted a DNA order and ordered forfeiture of large sums of cash and 70% of the offender’s residence as offence‑related property and proceeds of crime.

Four accused were charged with possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking after police intercepted shipping containers from Pakistan containing chromium ore concealing approximately 4.6 metric tons of cannabis resin.

Police removed the drugs and conducted a controlled delivery of a sample to a Toronto warehouse, where the accused were arrested after entering the premises.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance, fingerprint evidence, and the accused’s association with the shipment and each other.

The court held that the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that any accused had knowledge or control of the hidden drugs.

Alternative inferences consistent with innocence remained available, including the possibility that the accused were unwitting participants in the shipment’s handling.

The accused applied to exclude evidence obtained following a roadside stop and arrest, alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Police stopped a rented minivan under Highway Traffic Act authority during a proactive burglary investigation and detected the odour of fresh marihuana emanating from the vehicle, leading to arrest and discovery of large quantities of marihuana, cash, and a firearm through subsequent searches.

The court held the traffic stop was lawful and not an arbitrary detention, and that the odour of fresh marihuana together with surrounding circumstances provided reasonable grounds for arrest.

Searches of a box, the vehicle, the residence, and the accused were found lawful or supported by valid warrants, though a brief delay in providing right-to-counsel advice constituted a modest s.10(b) breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence and allowed the prosecution to proceed.