Darrell Hogan

The applicant sought leave to extend the time to file a Notice of Application to challenge the Crown's decision to withdraw charges against a third party.

The applicant had been informed of the Crown's intention to withdraw on December 13, 2024, with the withdrawal occurring on January 22, 2025.

The applicant did not file his application until April 8, 2025, well beyond the 30-day deadline.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the required period and failed to provide a credible explanation for the delay.

Additionally, the court found no merit to the applicant's allegations of abuse of process by the Crown.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to extend time to file an application for certiorari and mandamus to judicially review a Crown Attorney's decision to stay a private prosecution for fraud against Bell Canada.

The Crown had stayed the prosecution due to a lack of reasonable prospect of conviction and public interest, viewing it as a civil matter.

The court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process by the Crown and that the application lacked merit.

The defendant, Matthew McNair, was charged with refusing a breath sample, failing to comply with a release order, and several Highway Traffic Act offences.

The defence sought to exclude evidence of the breath refusal due to alleged violations of Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) and an unlawful breath demand.

The court found that the defendant's s. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights were violated due to arbitrary detention, prolonged handcuffing, and delayed/unclear right to counsel cautions.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded the evidence of the breath refusal.

Additionally, the breath demand itself was found unlawful due to non-compliance with the "immediacy" requirement of s. 320.27 of the Criminal Code and the absence of an Approved Screening Device (ASD).

However, evidence for the Highway Traffic Act offences and the breach of the release order was admitted as these offences occurred prior to the Charter breaches and the evidence was not "obtained in a manner" that violated the Charter.

The accused, Keenan Kawall, brought a mid-trial Charter application to exclude photographic evidence obtained by police without consent and subsequently used with facial recognition software to identify him.

The defence argued the photographs violated his Section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure, particularly in light of Ontario Regulation 58/16 (the "street check" regulation) and the potential for future invasive technological use.

The Crown argued no reasonable expectation of privacy existed in a public space and the regulation did not apply.

The court found that while the officer violated O. Reg. 58/16 by arbitrarily collecting identifying information, Mr. Kawall's Section 8 Charter rights were not engaged because he had a diminished expectation of privacy in a public space, and the photographs did not reveal core biographical information.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Jennifer McKinley, was charged with criminal harassment, failing to comply with a release order, and assaulting a peace officer.

She pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a release order.

The trial proceeded on the remaining charges.

The court found the accused guilty of criminal harassment, concluding she repeatedly communicated with the complainant, causing him reasonable fear for his safety, despite being explicitly told to stop.

However, the court found her not guilty of assaulting a peace officer due to reasonable doubt regarding her intent during the arrest.

This ruling addresses a Leaney application by the Crown to admit a police officer's opinion evidence regarding the identity of the accused from surveillance video footage.

The court applied the "prior acquaintance/better position" test, finding the officer sufficiently familiar with one accused (Siddiqui) to offer an opinion.

The application was granted for high-quality video footage from a school portable but denied for poor-quality video from the East York Town Centre, emphasizing that video quality is a crucial factor for admissibility of recognition evidence.

The accused, Muhammad Hassan, applied for a bail review after being detained on charges of possession of a loaded restricted firearm and cocaine for trafficking.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, as prior drug-related charges had been acquitted or stayed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed sureties (brother-in-law and family friend) and electronic monitoring plan were insufficient to address the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court emphasized the seriousness of the current charges, the applicant's history of bail breaches while on prior release, and the limited effectiveness of electronic monitoring without strong supervision.

The accused, Richard Sheridan and Chad Noureddine, facing a retrial for second-degree murder, applied for severance from each other.

Noureddine argued prejudice from Sheridan's statement, potential jury misuse, and impact on his duress defence.

Sheridan argued prejudice from edits to his statement and potential prejudicial evidence from Noureddine's duress defence.

The court dismissed both applications, affirming the presumption of joint trials for co-accused in joint criminal ventures.

The court found that limiting instructions and prior edits to Sheridan's statement sufficiently mitigated prejudice, and rejected the argument that juries would be unable to follow complex instructions or that hypothetical evidence warranted severance.