Craig Bottomley

The applicants, charged with two counts of second-degree murder following a nightclub shooting, brought Charter applications to exclude evidence.

The police had obtained the applicants' names and contact information from their banks without a warrant, claiming exigent circumstances due to the fleeing armed suspects.

The court found a breach of section 8 of the Charter, noting the applicants had a diminished expectation of privacy in the 'tombstone' banking information.

However, applying the Grant framework under section 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the police acted in good faith with an honest belief in exigent circumstances and that exclusion would significantly harm the administration of justice.

The appellant appealed his five-year global sentence for drug and firearm offences, arguing the sentencing judge erred by exceeding the Crown's four-year proposal without notice or reasons.

The Court of Appeal held that a sentencing judge must notify counsel and provide clear reasons when intending to impose a sentence higher than the Crown's proposal, even in the absence of a joint submission.

Finding an error in principle that impacted the sentence, the Court allowed the appeal and substituted a four-year sentence.

The applicants brought a motion to exclude wiretap evidence obtained during a police investigation into the manufacturing and trafficking of converted firearms.

They argued that the police failed to demonstrate the existence of a criminal organization, failed to establish investigative necessity, and engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation that subverted the pre-authorization process.

The court found that while there were insufficient grounds to establish a criminal organization and some misrepresentations existed in the affidavits, the investigative necessity requirement was met for the firearms offences.

After excising the misleading information, the court concluded that the authorizing judge could still have granted the authorizations.

The court declined to exercise its residual discretion to exclude the evidence, finding no deliberate attempt to subvert the prior authorization process.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, T.D., sought a review of a detention order that had been upheld on tertiary grounds.

The application was brought during the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court assessed the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, considering a new bail plan that included three sureties (parents and girlfriend) and electronic monitoring.

The court found the proposed plan sufficient to address concerns about public protection, noting the sureties' track records and the applicant's lack of prior breaches.

For the tertiary ground, the court balanced the seriousness of the offence (possessing a loaded firearm) against the applicant's personal circumstances (asthma, heightened COVID-19 risk in detention, no violent record or compliance breaches).

The court concluded that continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for bail review was granted, and the applicant was ordered released on a $320,000 recognizance with conditions including house arrest and GPS monitoring.

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.

Sentencing decision following conviction for aggravated assault and weapons dangerous.

The accused stabbed the victim once in the cardiac box during an altercation, causing catastrophic injuries including cardiac arrest, anoxic brain injury, and permanent cognitive and functional impairment.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years on the aggravated assault charge, with 12 months concurrent on the weapons charge, resulting in a net sentence of 1.5 years after crediting 2 years of pretrial custody.

The court applied collateral consequence credit of 3 months for harsh incarceration conditions, resulting in a final net sentence of 15 months, followed by 2 years probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, counselling, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The applicant, facing serious drug trafficking and firearms charges, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code based on a material change in circumstances.

The court found that the proposal of two new sureties, a stricter release plan including GPS monitoring, and the failure of the detention centre to address the applicant's basic medical needs constituted a material change.

The court held that the strict release plan sufficiently mitigated the secondary ground risks.

Furthermore, the institution's failure to provide adequate medical care meant that the applicant's continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice under the tertiary ground.

The bail review was granted and the applicant was released on a recognizance.

The accused was charged with attempt murder, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace following an incident on April 30, 2018, in which he allegedly stabbed the victim in the chest with a sharp object, causing a life-threatening cardiac injury and anoxic brain injury.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony, surveillance video evidence, and recognition evidence from police officers with prior acquaintance with the accused.

The trial judge found the identification evidence compelling through a combination of facial features, distinctive tattoos, clothing, and circumstantial factors including the suspect's proximity to the accused's residence and the timeline of events.

The court convicted on aggravated assault and weapons charges but acquitted on attempt murder, finding insufficient evidence of specific intent to kill.

The accused was convicted of mischief following a trial for his role in organizing and participating in a large motorcycle ride in August 2017 that resulted in multiple traffic stoppages on 400-series highways in the Greater Toronto Area.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and probation with conditions, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months' probation, including conditions prohibiting motorcycle operation, requiring motorcycle safety training, and mandating 40 hours of community service.

The court also granted relief from forfeiture of the accused's motorcycle, finding that forfeiture would be disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence.

The accused applied for leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information To Obtain (ITO) a search warrant at a preliminary inquiry.

The accused sought to examine areas relating to the corroboration of confidential informant (CI) information, the steps taken to corroborate such information, and whether police contaminated the information by reaching out to a CI.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed cross-examination did not meet the threshold test established in R. v. Garofoli and R. v. Dawson.

The court held that a preliminary inquiry is not the appropriate venue for such cross-examination, particularly given the risk of identifying confidential informers and the fact that the trial judge would be better positioned to address these issues through the Garofoli procedure.

The accused were charged with dangerous driving, mischief, and conspiracy arising from a large, organized motorcycle ride ('The Ride of the 6ix') that caused traffic stoppages and involved risky maneuvers on highways.

The court acquitted Mr. Lannon of all charges due to insufficient identification evidence.

Mr. Allaudin, identified as the organizer of the ride, was found guilty of mischief as a principal and party for coordinating the traffic stoppages.

However, he was acquitted of dangerous driving and conspiracy, as his own riding did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care, and the Crown failed to prove he had the requisite knowledge or intent to aid or abet the dangerous riding of others.

The offender, Lauralee Walker, was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of crack cocaine, and significant mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of prior record, young age, strong family ties, employment history, limited role in the offences, and the context of domestic abuse by her co-accused.

The court also noted the offender's remorse and voluntary disassociation from the co-accused.

Despite the general requirement for custodial sentences in crack cocaine trafficking cases, the court found that the unique circumstances, including over 600 days under restrictive bail conditions, warranted a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA sample order, and victim surcharges.

The appellants appealed their convictions for assault causing bodily harm and, for one appellant, threatening death.

The court upheld the convictions for assault causing bodily harm, finding the trial judge's assessment of credibility and reliability, and rejection of self-defence, to be reasonable and supported by evidence.

However, the conviction for threatening death was set aside as unsupported by evidence.

At a preliminary inquiry into the deaths of Tyler McLean and Zemarai Khan Mohammed, who were shot outside the Rebel nightclub on October 1, 2017, the Crown sought committal of both accused on murder charges.

Tanade Mohamed conceded committal on two counts of second-degree murder as the alleged shooter.

Abdirisaq Ali, who drove the vehicle from which the shots were fired, contested committal and sought to be committed only as an accessory after the fact.

The court found that while the accessory provisions captured Ali's involvement, there was a reasonable inference that Ali knew Mohamed had a gun and intended to assist in the murders, based on Ali's conduct in positioning the vehicle, waiting in the parking lot, and fleeing the scene.

The court committed both accused to stand trial on two counts of second-degree murder.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving allegations of sexual assault and related sexual offences against a 15-year-old complainant, the only live issue was whether the alleged sexual activity occurred.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court held that the accused's denial, supported in part by the spouse's evidence on a key alleged incident, raised a reasonable doubt.

The court found serious reliability concerns in the complainant's evidence, including material inconsistencies, an evidentiary gap surrounding the evolution of her allegations after treatment and discussions with others, and a significant contradiction concerning a specific alleged incident.

The Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused, while in custody, counselled a fellow inmate and an undercover police officer to murder his ex-girlfriend to prevent her from testifying against him in an upcoming trial.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the fellow inmate, a 'Vetrovec' witness with a lengthy criminal record.

The court found the inmate's testimony credible and substantially corroborated by objective evidence, including a recorded phone call between the accused and the undercover officer.

The accused was found guilty of counselling murder and attempting to obstruct justice.

The accused, charged with counselling murder and obstructing justice, brought a Garofoli application challenging a wiretap authorization.

He argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to disclose that the police informer had requested and received sentencing consideration.

The accused also alleged breaches of his s. 7 Charter rights due to deliberate police deception and a failure to video or audio record all interactions with the informer.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the omission in the ITO was inadvertent and that the warrant could still have issued if the omitted information had been included.

The court also held there was no constitutional duty to create video or audio records of all police interactions with the informer.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay, alleging a violation of their s. 11(b) Charter right.

The total delay was approximately 54.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling under R. v. Jordan.

The court found certain periods of defence delay and identified three discrete exceptional circumstances related to the preliminary inquiry: a last-minute election for a preliminary inquiry, the illness of the assigned justice, and underestimation of the preliminary inquiry's length.

The court also determined the case was particularly complex due to voluminous disclosure, numerous witnesses, and multiple co-accused, and that the Crown had a concrete plan to manage this complexity.

Additionally, the transitional exceptional circumstance was applied, finding that the institutional delay was acceptable under the previous Morin framework and that the Crown reasonably relied on the prior state of the law.

No actual prejudice to the accused was found.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, Michael Majeed, challenged the validity of a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing that evidence obtained from his home should be excluded due to an unreasonable search and seizure.

The court conducted a *Garofoli* review, assessing whether the affiant subverted the pre-authorization process through deliberate non-disclosure, bad faith, or fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court found that while the affiant's disclosures were not full or fair and showed a lack of care, they did not meet the high threshold of deliberate deception or subversion required to invalidate the warrant.

The s. 8 application was dismissed.

The applicant, Michael Majeed, facing fraud charges, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of a search warrant Information to Obtain (ITO).

The defence challenged the search warrant's validity under s. 8 of the Charter, alleging the affiant misled the issuing justice.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court applied the Garofoli test for leave to cross-examine and considered the residual discretion to set aside a warrant for subversion of the pre-authorization process.

The court found a realistic likelihood that cross-examination in three specific areas (source of physical description, source of fraudulent funds, and frequency of sightings) would assist in determining whether the affiant deliberately misled or acted with significant carelessness.

Leave to cross-examine was granted.