Craig Zeeh

The applicants, arrested in a large-scale police investigation, brought an abuse of process motion seeking a stay of proceedings due to systemic delays in holding their special bail hearings.

They argued that their section 11(e) Charter rights were violated, similar to the applicants in a previous case where a stay was granted.

The court found that while the applicants' rights were violated by the delays, the systemic problem in the jurisdiction had been largely rectified following the previous decision.

As the ongoing systemic delay had been addressed, a stay of proceedings was no longer necessary to protect the integrity of the justice system.

The application was dismissed, though the court noted the Charter violations could warrant a sentence reduction if the applicants are convicted.

The accused were charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at their residence and seized cocaine, a loaded handgun, and cash.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant was deliberately misleading and lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the ITO contained numerous inaccurate, exaggerated, and unsupported statements by the affiant officer, which were excised.

After excising the misleading information, the court concluded that the remaining evidence from a confidential informant was insufficiently corroborated, resulting in breaches of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police conduct in drafting a deliberately misleading ITO.

As the Crown called no further evidence, all charges were dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude firearms-related evidence and a statement obtained following the execution of a residential search warrant.

The court held that the information to obtain established reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused had committed an offence, but failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence would be found at the residence, and contained a misleading statement about timing.

The court also found an unjustified delay in implementing the accused’s right to counsel after the scene had stabilized and again after arrival at the police station, although no s. 9 breach was made out.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm, ammunition, and cash, but admitted the post-consultation statement.

The appellant, Mohammed Hakimzadah, sought leave to appeal a nine-year sentence for multiple counselling offences, including the murder of his wife and her family law lawyer.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario rejected arguments that the sentencing judge failed to provide sufficient notice of a higher sentence or adequately explain reasons.

The court found the sentence was not demonstrably unfit, considering the egregious nature of the offences, which put multiple persons, including a justice system participant, at risk.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original sentence.

The appellant, P.D.C., appealed his convictions for sexual assault, criminal harassment, and breach of recognizance.

He raised five grounds of appeal, primarily concerning the trial judge's refusal to grant a mistrial or appoint amicus curiae after he discharged his counsel mid-trial, and the adequacy of the trial judge's guidance as a self-represented accused.

He also challenged the similar fact evidence ruling and the jury instructions on consent for the sexual assault charge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary decisions regarding the mistrial and amicus appointment, noting the appellant's voluntary decision to discharge counsel at an advanced stage of the trial.

The court also found that the trial judge provided sufficient guidance to the self-represented accused and that the jury instructions on consent were adequate given the evidence and theory of the case.

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 appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference on the basis that the trial judge failed to provide sufficient reasons.

The trial judge had stated she was confident of the appellant's guilt but reserved her reasons to address inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

However, no written or oral reasons for conviction were ever delivered.

The Crown conceded the appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial, finding that the lack of reasons prevented appellate review.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a Probation Order (x2), failing to comply with a Release Order, failing to comply with an undertaking, failing to comply with a Weapons Prohibition Order, and uttering a death threat.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the surety, who admitted to perjury at the bail hearing and had an extensive criminal record.

The court found the surety's evidence unreliable due to his credibility issues, lack of corroborating evidence, and the substantial amount of alcohol and drugs he consumed on the evening in question.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The appellant was convicted by a jury of multiple counts of physical and sexual abuse against his spouse and two children.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury against cross-count reasoning and by failing to provide a limiting instruction regarding discreditable conduct evidence.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the extensive highly prejudicial bad character evidence presented at trial required specific instructions to prevent the jury from engaging in prohibited propensity reasoning.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

This is a detention review application under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant, previously detained on tertiary grounds, sought release arguing errors of law by the Justice of the Peace and material changes in circumstances, including a new electronic monitoring plan and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no error of law but agreed that the new monitoring system and the pandemic constituted material changes.

Applying s. 515(10) criteria, the court found detention was not required on secondary grounds due to the applicant's lack of criminal record and stable employment, and that the proposed restrictive conditions and electronic monitoring would manage public safety risks.

While the tertiary grounds initially weighed heavily for detention given the serious charges and strong Crown case, the court balanced these with the improved release plan, the general vulnerability of inmates to COVID-19, and trial delays.

Ultimately, the court concluded that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice and ordered the applicant's release on a substantial recognizance with strict conditions.

The appellant, Thanh Tung Phan, appealed his conviction for first-degree murder.

The appeal raised two main grounds: an alleged error in the disposition of a Garofoli application concerning the judicial authorization for surveillance and tracking, and an error in admitting evidence of a history of violence between rival gangs (Chin Pac and Asian Assassinz) to establish motive.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the Garofoli ruling, concluding that the authorizing justice had reasonable and probable grounds even after excising inaccurate information from the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court also found no error in admitting the gang evidence, determining its probative value for narrative, animus, and motive outweighed its prejudicial effect, especially given the trial judge's careful instructions and the manner of admission.

Lalendra Desilva was sentenced for possession of various drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the large quantity and variety of drugs, the commercial nature of the operation, and bail non-compliance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's age, lack of prior criminal record, strong support, education, employment history, and genuine remorse.

Enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions was also applied.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3½ years' imprisonment, aligning with the defence's request, along with ancillary orders.

The defendant pled guilty to assault using an imitation weapon, uttering death threats, and failure to comply.

The court considered the aggravating factor of using an imitation firearm in broad daylight and the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, rehabilitation efforts, and a difficult childhood.

The court imposed a 12-month sentence, which was reduced to a suspended sentence after applying pre-sentence custody and Duncan credits for lockdown conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, followed by two years of probation.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of search warrants on three apartments and a motor vehicle.

The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence under sections 8, 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's section 9 rights were not violated as police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

However, the court found violations of section 8 rights because the Information to Obtain, as amplified on review, failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence would be found at the target apartment.

The court also found a violation of section 10(b) rights due to an unjustified delay in providing access to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant challenged the validity of search warrants under s. 8 of the Charter at a Garofoli hearing (Step 6).

The Crown sought to defend warrants for searches at three locations based on information from confidential informants.

The court applied the "three Cs" test from R. v. Debot (compelling, credible, corroborated) to assess the reliability of the informant information.

The court found that the informant's detailed, first-hand information about the accused's drug dealing activities, combined with the informant's credibility and police corroboration, met the requisite standard for warrant issuance.

The warrants were upheld as valid.

The applicant sought exclusion of drugs and currency seized following his arrest for breaching bail and drug trafficking offences, alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court held the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for bail non-compliance, and that the subsequent search of the person and vehicle was lawful, including as a search incident to arrest.

The court further held that the delay in access to counsel was reasonable in the circumstances, but found a breach where police elicited statements without cautioning the detainee about the right to silence before counsel access.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breach was of moderate seriousness with limited prejudicial impact, and that exclusion of the drugs and proceeds would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the seriousness of the offences.

The evidence was admitted for trial.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application challenging the police suspension of his right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Following the execution of three search warrants at locations associated with the applicant, police arrested him and deliberately delayed his access to counsel for approximately 20 hours while executing the warrants and conducting searches.

The applicant was not permitted to speak with counsel until the following morning in bail court.

The court found that the police violated the applicant's section 10(b) rights by deliberately delaying implementation of the right to counsel without valid justification.

The court further found that the seized evidence (drugs and currency) was obtained in a manner that infringed the applicant's Charter rights and that exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) was warranted, as admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant on the grounds that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was heavily redacted and lacked sufficient grounds to justify the warrant.

The Crown applied for a telewarrant to search three locations based primarily on information from two confidential informants regarding drug trafficking.

The applicant challenged the warrant under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, arguing insufficient nexus between the alleged criminality and the locations, and lack of currency in the information.

The court found that the heavily redacted ITO, even with limited peel-backs and clarifications, did not contain sufficient credible and reliable evidence to permit a justice to find reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a surviving victim of a shooting to testify behind a screen pursuant to s. 486.2 of the Criminal Code.

The witness suffered from paranoid schizophrenia and experienced significant anxiety about facing the accused.

The court granted the application, finding that the witness's mental disorder would make testifying difficult and that a screen would facilitate a full and candid account without interfering with the proper administration of justice.

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.