Darrell Hogan

The applicant was convicted of failing to provide a breath sample and received a mandatory one-year driving prohibition.

He appealed the conviction and applied for a stay of the driving prohibition pending the appeal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the grounds of appeal were frivolous and that the applicant failed to demonstrate undue hardship, as relying on public transit constitutes a mere inconvenience.

The appellant, a building superintendent, was convicted of sexually assaulting a tenant in her apartment.

He appealed the conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, scrutinized evidence unevenly, and improperly relied on his bad character.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge engaged in impermissible moral reasoning by rejecting the appellant's evidence based on his misogynistic views and lack of respect for the complainant.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter following a group attack on a TTC bus passenger.

The offender punched the victim to the ground twice, preventing his escape, while fully aware that a co-accused possessed and was using a knife to stab the victim.

The court weighed significant mitigating factors, including the offender's troubled upbringing, lack of prior record, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, against the gravity of the unprovoked group attack.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it would not adequately reflect denunciation and deterrence, and imposed a sentence of 2 years plus one day in a federal penitentiary, in addition to 30 months of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

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 two accused were charged with multiple offences, including aggravated assault, robbery, and attempted murder, following a violent altercation captured on video surveillance.

The court found the Crown proved the identity of the larger suspect.

The primary accused was convicted of assault, assault by choking, assault with a weapon, and aggravated assault, as his self-defence claim was rejected due to disproportionate force.

The co-accused was convicted of assault, assault by choking, and assault with a weapon as a party, but acquitted of aggravated assault due to evidence of abandonment.

Both were acquitted of robbery and attempted murder.

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.

The accused pushed a stranger onto subway tracks while experiencing a substance-induced psychotic episode.

The court ordered an assessment to determine if the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The psychiatric evidence indicated the accused suffered from schizophrenia and a polysubstance abuse disorder, making him more vulnerable to drug-induced psychosis.

The court applied a holistic approach, finding the psychosis was not exclusively caused by drug use but was intertwined with his underlying mental disorder, presenting a continuing danger.

The accused was found NCR and referred to the Ontario Review Board.

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, charged with robbery and aggravated assault, sought an adjournment of their trial due to outstanding disclosure, specifically facial recognition software results and an officer's memo book notes regarding identification.

The Crown opposed a full adjournment, proposing to start the trial with other witnesses.

The court balanced the accused's fair trial rights with the need to control the trial process.

The court ruled that the trial would commence with the lead investigator and complainant, allowing the defence to recall the investigator once the missing disclosure was provided, and delaying the identifying officer's testimony until his notes were disclosed.

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.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for failing to provide a breath sample, arguing ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The alleged deficiencies were counsel’s abandonment of a Charter s. 11(b) delay application and the failure to call medical expert evidence supporting the defence that anxiety prevented the appellant from providing a breath sample.

Applying the test from R. v. G.D.B., the court held the appellant failed to establish either unreasonable professional conduct or resulting prejudice.

The trial judge had rejected the appellant’s factual account, meaning any expert opinion based on that account would not have altered the outcome.

The court dismissed the appeal and lifted the stay of the driving prohibition.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial involving multiple allegations of sexual abuse against three young children within a family setting, the court focused on the credibility and reliability of child witnesses, the impact of delayed disclosure, and the possibility of suggestion or collusion arising from subsequent caregiving discussions.

Applying the governing framework for assessing defence evidence and the recognized approach to child testimony, the court rejected the defence witness’s denial, found the two younger children’s evidence unreliable on several counts, but accepted the older child’s later and more detailed disclosures as credible and reliable on specific allegations.

The court acquitted on the invitation-to-touch counts and on the counts alleging penile sexual assault of the two younger children, but convicted on multiple counts involving the older child and on the “sucking and smacking” allegations.

A publication ban under s. 486.4 applied.