Conlan

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of methamphetamine and codeine, following a traffic stop and subsequent search of his vehicle and residence.

The court found the accused guilty of simple possession of methamphetamine and codeine.

Regarding the cocaine, while the Crown presented evidence including 29.4 grams of cocaine, a digital scale, cash, and text messages, the court had a reasonable doubt about the accused's intention to traffic, partly due to his exculpatory statements to police and the absence of debt lists or cutting agents.

The accused was acquitted of possession for the purpose of trafficking but found guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of cocaine.

During a trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown brought an application to qualify a police officer as an expert in the use, pricing, sale, and distribution of cocaine.

The court dismissed the application without a formal voir dire, finding that the proposed evidence failed the Mohan test for admissibility.

Specifically, the court held that the evidence lacked legal relevance as it was not grounded on proven facts and was unnecessary because the inferences sought by the Crown, such as interpreting text messages, did not require expert assistance.

The accused, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary arrest and unreasonable search.

The police stopped the accused's vehicle and arrested him without a warrant based on confidential informant information and surveillance.

The police subsequently searched his vehicle incident to arrest and found cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the vehicle search was a valid search incident to arrest.

The accused was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, sexual assault, and communicating to obtain sexual services for consideration from a minor.

The 15-year-old complainant alleged she exchanged sex for methamphetamine with the accused.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be highly inconsistent and unreliable due to chronic drug use, lack of sleep, and memory-affecting medication.

Applying the W.(D.) analysis, the court accepted the accused's unshaken denials and found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant for $120,000 owing on a promissory note signed in connection with the defendant's purchase of a family restaurant business.

The defendant argued the note was unenforceable due to undue influence, lack of consideration, and mistake, and counterclaimed for the return of payments already made.

The court found the defendant's evidence unreliable and accepted the plaintiffs' evidence that the note represented the assumption of an antecedent debt owed by the previous owner.

The court held there was no undue influence, valuable consideration existed, and there was no mistake.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for $120,000 plus prejudgment interest, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The accused, an adult firefighter, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against the 14-year-old daughter of a fellow firefighter.

The Crown relied on the complainant's testimony and electronic communications between the parties.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly when contrasted with the testimony of her friend, an independent witness.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that while the accused's denials were not entirely credible, the totality of the evidence left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against his 20-year-old step-daughter.

The allegations arose from an incident where the accused gave the complainant a massage, during which he allegedly touched her private parts without consent.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant, the accused, and the accused's wife.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's denials due to inconsistencies, poor memory, and collaboration with his wife.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused was tried on six charges including trafficking fentanyl and hydromorphone, simple possession of fentanyl, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of prohibited weapons.

The Crown alleged the accused supplied fentanyl to an intermediary who sold it to an undercover officer.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused of trafficking fentanyl.

However, the court acquitted the accused on the remaining charges, finding reasonable doubt regarding the source of the hydromorphone, the lawfulness of the excess fentanyl patches, the origin of the seized cash, and the accused's knowledge of the prohibited characteristics of the seized knives.

The plaintiff property owner brought an action for trespass and an injunction against the defendant neighbours, who counterclaimed for a prescriptive easement over the dry land portion of the plaintiff's water lot.

The court found that the defendants' historical use of the land was either with the express or implied permission of the plaintiff and his predecessors, defeating the claim for a prescriptive easement.

The court granted the plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering the dry portions of the water lot and awarded nominal damages for trespass.

The accused, charged with human trafficking and prostitution-related offences involving a 17-year-old complainant, brought pretrial applications challenging the constitutionality of the human trafficking provisions in the Criminal Code and seeking a stay of the prostitution charges for abuse of process.

The court dismissed the constitutionality application, finding that the human trafficking provisions are neither void for vagueness nor overbroad.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process application, concluding it was premature and lacked an air of reality that the accused could rely on exceptions under the new prostitution regime.

The offender was found guilty of multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault and sexual interference, against his 12-13 year old step-daughter.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years, while the defence sought two years less a day.

The court declined to apply the Kienapple principle to stay counts 1 or 2, finding the incidents were separate transactions.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, and noting the offender's breach of trust and prior record for violence, the court imposed a global sentence of four years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant brought an application for a constitutional exemption to permit a physician-assisted death, along with a motion for confidentiality measures including a publication ban and an in camera hearing.

The court granted the publication ban and use of pseudonyms but denied the request for an in camera hearing, citing the open court principle.

On the main application, the court found that the applicant suffered from a grievous and irremediable medical condition causing enduring and intolerable suffering, and that the request was made freely by a competent adult.

The application for physician-assisted death was granted.

The offender was found guilty of criminal harassment following the end of an extra-marital affair with the victim.

He sent unwanted text messages, including a threat to go 'Rambo' on her, and left a disturbing voicemail.

The Crown sought 30-45 days in custody, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but noted the offender's lack of a prior record and positive presentence report.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, declining a conditional discharge due to the threatening nature of the communications.

Two brothers disputed the ownership of a family farm corporation following the deaths of their parents.

The applicant, Barry Reid, sought to enforce a purported 1991 holograph will that he discovered in 1999, which allegedly left the farm shares to him.

The respondent, Robert Reid, argued the claim was statute-barred.

The court held that the exceptions under section 43(2) of the former Limitations Act for trust property retained or converted by a trustee did not apply, as the mother had taken the shares personally as the rightful beneficiary under a 1984 will.

Consequently, the six-year limitation period applied and expired in 2005, rendering the 2012 application statute-barred.

The accused, the step-father of the 12-year-old complainant, was tried for multiple sexual offences including sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and exposing his genitals.

The offences occurred during the summer of 2013 and on New Year's 2013/2014.

The sole issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the child complainant's testimony, given inconsistencies, delayed reporting, and an alleged motive to fabricate.

The court applied the common sense approach to child witness testimony, found the complainant to be credible and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of uttering forged documents, possession of property obtained by crime, and attempted fraud.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an accomplice who had already pleaded guilty to related frauds.

The court found the accomplice's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the mastermind or the driver who assisted in the frauds.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The offender, a 29-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic cocaine and cannabis, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought 4.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for mid-level drug trafficking operations motivated by profit.

Balancing the serious nature of the offences with the offender's guilty pleas, lack of prior record, and strong family support, the court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, reduced by 6 months for strict bail conditions, resulting in 42 months imprisonment.

The accused, facing multiple charges including human trafficking, prostitution, firearms, and drug offences, brought pretrial applications for a change of venue and severance of counts.

The accused argued that pretrial publicity necessitated a change of venue and that the drug charges should be severed because he only intended to testify regarding the other offences.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the pretrial publicity was largely stale and could be addressed by trial safeguards, and that the strong factual nexus between the charges favoured a single trial.

The father brought a motion to change a 2013 consent order to seek equal shared residency of the parties' 13-year-old child.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the child was content with the status quo of residing primarily with her.

The court conducted two private interviews with the child and found a material change in circumstances based on the child's clear and consistent preference for shared residency.

After assessing the best interests factors under section 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court granted the motion and ordered equal shared residency to take effect at the end of the school year.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment following a brief sexual relationship with the complainant.

The complainant alleged that the accused forced her to engage in non-consensual anal intercourse in his truck, and subsequently sent her numerous unwanted and threatening text messages.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual assault, finding that the conflicting evidence on consent left a reasonable doubt.

However, the court convicted the accused of criminal harassment, concluding that his repeated, unwanted communications caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her safety.