Daniel Moore

This decision concerns the conviction of Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza for Fraud Over $5,000 under section 380 of the Criminal Code related to syndicated mortgage loans raised through their organization, Fortress.

The Court found that Rathore and Petrozza intentionally misled investors by misrepresenting the value of the security backing the loans, using inflated and misleading appraisals to calculate loan-to-value ratios, thereby deceiving investors about the actual security of their investments.

The Crown's theory of non-disclosure of upfront fees was rejected, as fees were paid by the borrower and not the lenders, and no obligation to disclose them to investors was found.

The Court emphasized the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and relied on documentary evidence to assess credibility and reliability.

The accused were found guilty based on the misrepresentations of value that created a risk of deprivation to investors.

This decision addresses the jurisdictional limits of the Ontario Court of Justice to appoint state-funded counsel for complainants/respondents in sexual offence proceedings under section 278 of the Criminal Code.

The court clarifies that while complainants/respondents have a statutory right to standing and to be represented by counsel, the Criminal Code does not authorize courts to appoint state-funded counsel for them.

The judge distinguishes this from appointments under section 486.3 and amicus curiae appointments, which have clear statutory or inherent jurisdictional bases.

The ruling emphasizes that state-funded counsel appointments require either explicit statutory authority or a Charter-based application following the Rowbotham procedure.

The court dismisses the application for an additional order appointing counsel, affirming the importance of counsel representation but underscoring the absence of jurisdiction to make such appointments automatically.

The Crown and the accused jointly sought to vary the accused's release conditions to allow unrestricted contact with the complainant and participation in a Ministry of the Attorney General-approved Partner Assault Response (PAR) program, with the understanding that the assault charge would be withdrawn upon successful completion and entry into a peace bond.

Justice Moore critically examined the "standard" PAR conditions proposed, finding them inconsistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *R. v. Zora*.

The court ruled that such conditions were not justified to ensure court attendance or public safety, inappropriately delegated judicial authority, were not tailored to the individual, were overly onerous, and attempted to enforce civil debt through criminal sanction.

The application for variation was granted, but with the court's substituted, less restrictive conditions for the PAR program.

The defendant was charged with threatening death contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that a passage in an article published in Your Ward News, which the defendant edited, constituted a threat to kill Warren and Lisa Kinsella.

The passage referenced the possibility that "some hothead" devoted to the defendant might "bludgeon the Kinsella's to death." The court applied the objective test established in R. v. McRae, examining both the plain and ordinary meaning of the words and contextual factors.

Although the court found that a threat interpretation was possible given the hostile history between the parties and the defendant's careful use of language, it concluded that the most likely interpretation was the plain meaning of the words.

The court acquitted the defendant, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the only reasonable interpretation was a threat to kill.

The defendant was charged with "Over 80" and "Impaired Driving" offences allegedly committed on September 17, 2016.

The defendant applied to exclude breath test results and observations made following his detention by police.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the arrest for impaired driving and the demand for breath samples were based on reasonable and probable grounds.

The court rejected the credibility of the police officer's testimony, finding it exaggerated and misleading.

The court determined that the arrest and detention violated sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court further found that the defendant was unlawfully handcuffed for approximately one hour and that the detention was unnecessarily prolonged due to police negligence.

Applying the section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded all breath test results and video recordings as evidence.