David A. Harris

The accused was charged with multiple offences relating to the trafficking of cocaine, firearms, and grenades following an undercover police operation.

He admitted to trafficking cocaine but claimed he was a 'blind courier' regarding the firearms and grenades, believing those packages contained cannabis products.

The court applied the W(D) principles and found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew he was delivering weapons.

The accused was found guilty of the cocaine charges and acquitted of the weapons charges.

A Charter s. 11(b) application for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic and case complexity.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a former employee.

The complainant alleged that the accused exposed himself, touched her breasts, and demanded oral sex under threat of termination.

The accused denied the allegations.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the testimony of both the accused and the complainant.

Although the court did not believe the accused's evidence, the inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony left the court with a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The young person was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged the young person engaged in non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant while she was incapable of consenting due to marijuana intoxication.

The young person testified that the sexual intercourse occurred on a different day and was consensual.

Applying the W(D) principles, the court found significant inconsistencies in the evidence of the Crown witnesses regarding the events and the effects of the marijuana.

The court concluded the evidence left a reasonable doubt and acquitted the young person.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after striking the victim in the head with a bottle at a nightclub.

The victim had initiated an unprovoked attack by punching the accused several times.

The accused claimed self-defence.

The court applied the self-defence framework under section 34 of the Criminal Code and found that while the accused was defending himself, his response of swinging a bottle in an overhand motion was disproportional to the threat, as the victim's punches did not injure him or knock him off balance.

The accused was found guilty of aggravated assault.

David Ardrey, a police constable, pleaded guilty to fraudulently obtaining computer service (CPIC/NICHE) by conducting unauthorized queries of a victim's information, contrary to s. 342.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered aggravating factors, including abuse of trust and significant victim impact, and mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, no prior record, and significant collateral consequences.

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

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year of probation, including no-contact and non-attendance conditions, but declined to impose community service, finding that a conviction was sufficient for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death after striking and killing an e-bike rider while speeding.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, her guilty plea, her significant remorse, and her mental health struggles, balanced against the severe consequences of her actions and her prior speeding infractions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, and a 10-year driving prohibition.

Brandon Clark pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a conveyance and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The Crown sought nine months imprisonment, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a blended sentence of 30 days intermittent imprisonment and a concurrent nine-month conditional sentence, along with a two-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The decision emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as paramount objectives for drinking and driving offences, while also considering the offender's rehabilitation and the significant victim impact.

Mohamed Ali was found guilty of sexually assaulting LSM.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The Crown sought 2-3 years imprisonment and ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA, weapons prohibition, no-contact order).

Defence sought a 6-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a two-year term of imprisonment, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and that nothing short of a penitentiary sentence would be suitable given the gravity of the offence and its significant impact on the victim.

The court also imposed all ancillary orders requested by the Crown.

The accused, Loic Simeu, was charged with unlawful confinement, obtaining sexual services for consideration, assault police, and uttering threats.

He pleaded guilty to obtaining sexual services for consideration but contested the other charges.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant (AP), a friend (MM), police officers, and the accused.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability issues in the Crown's witness testimonies, particularly regarding the complainant's prior dishonesty with police and failure to provide crucial information during a 911 call.

The court also scrutinized the police officers' accounts of the accused's arrest and behaviour, noting their perceptions were colored by initial misinformation.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the charges of threatening, unlawful confinement, and assault police beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to their dismissal.

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

At the police station, the accused requested to speak with a specific lawyer who was a relative and a tax lawyer.

The breath technician refused to call the requested lawyer, deciding she could not assist with a criminal matter, and instead called duty counsel.

The court found this arbitrary refusal violated the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the police conduct was a serious infringement that outweighed the reliability of the breath samples.

The breath test results were excluded under s. 24(2), resulting in the dismissal of the charge.

Patryk Myszka pleaded guilty to voyeurism (s. 162(1) Criminal Code) for secretly recording his common-law partner in their home for a sexual purpose.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of 5 months followed by 18 months probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the offence, breach of trust, and significant victim impact, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, and engagement in counselling.

The judge determined that a conditional discharge was not in the public interest due to the seriousness of the offence, but a conditional sentence was also not necessary.

A suspended sentence with 18 months probation and a forfeiture order for the recording devices was imposed, emphasizing denunciation, general deterrence, and the victim's protection.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of evidence during the cross-examination of a Crown witness in a criminal trial.

The defence sought to ask questions, which the Crown objected to on grounds of relevance and offending section 276 of the Criminal Code.

The court found section 276 applicable, adopting reasoning from R. v. Amdurski and R. v. Barton, and ruled on which specific questions could be asked, balancing relevance with the protective purposes of section 276.

During a criminal trial, the Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for two witnesses to testify by videoconference.

The first witness, a police officer on vacation, was permitted to testify from a remote courthouse on consent.

The second witness, a civilian with a high-risk pregnancy, was permitted to testify from her home over the defence's objection that she should testify from a formal setting.

The court found that the solemnity of the proceedings and security concerns could be adequately addressed while allowing her to testify from home, minimizing health risks.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against Mohamed Ali, who was accused of non-consensual vaginal intercourse with the complainant, LSM.

The accused denied vaginal intercourse, claiming other sexual touching was consensual.

The court applied the principles of R. v. W.(D) to assess the conflicting evidence.

The accused's testimony was found to be inconsistent and not credible, particularly regarding his statements about ejaculation and his responses to the complainant's accusations.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and corroborated by forensic evidence (presence of the accused's semen in her vagina) and the accused's post-incident text messages.

The court rejected defence arguments based on "rape myths" concerning the complainant's behaviour and found that a breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule by defence counsel did not affect the outcome.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

This is a sentencing decision for Brandon Charles Rusk, who was found guilty of multiple sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim, including sexual assault, exposing genitals, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The Crown sought 12-15 months imprisonment, while the accused sought a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a one-year term of imprisonment followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA for life, s. 161 order, weapons prohibition, no-contact).

The judge found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences, the accused's lack of insight into consent, and the significant impact on the victim, despite the accused's recent efforts at rehabilitation for substance abuse.

The court declined to rule on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as the appropriate sentence exceeded these minimums.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for unlawfully undertaking development within 120 metres of a provincially significant wetland without permission from the Halton Regional Conservation Authority.

The appeal addressed four main issues: the reasonableness of the convictions, alleged infringements of section 7 Charter rights (including disclosure and abuse of process), alleged infringements of section 11(b) Charter rights (unreasonable delay), and the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.

The court dismissed the appeals against conviction and the Charter applications, finding the convictions reasonable and no Charter breaches.

However, the court partially allowed the appeal against sentence, reducing one appellant's fine, vacating the other's fine and substituting a suspended sentence, and amending the probation order to a one-year term with specific conditions, while upholding the remediation order.

Other counts were conditionally stayed based on the Kienapple principle.

The defendant, Ryan Bhimlal, was charged with having a blood alcohol concentration equal to or greater than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood within two hours of operating a conveyance.

At trial, he challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing breaches of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) (prompt information of reasons for detention), 10(b) (right to counsel without delay), and 8 (unreasonable search/seizure due to samples not taken "as soon as practicable").

The court found no breach of section 10(a) or 10(b), deeming the delays reasonable given the officer's inexperience and the actions taken.

The court also found that failure to take samples "as soon as practicable" is not a section 8 breach, and even if it were, the samples were taken reasonably promptly.

The court also performed a s. 24(2) analysis, concluding that even if a s. 10(b) breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded.

The defendant was found guilty.

A young person, JD, pleaded guilty to sexual assault (youth charge) and assault (adult charge) against CD.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) and the Criminal Code.

Despite the severe psychological impact on the victim and the violent nature of the sexual assault, the court imposed a two-year probation for the youth sexual assault charge, and a conditional discharge with three years probation for the adult assault charge, rather than custody.

The decision was based on JD's low risk of reoffending, his rehabilitation efforts, and the YCJA's emphasis on the least restrictive measures, especially given that sentencing occurred after JD's 20th birthday, meaning any custodial sentence would be served in an adult facility.

This is a sentencing decision for two young men who pleaded guilty to willfully promoting hatred against Jewish and Black people, contrary to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code, by posting hateful and dehumanizing posters in public places.

The Crown sought imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the hate speech and its community impact, and mitigating factors, such as the offenders' youth, lack of prior record, guilty pleas, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

Ultimately, the court imposed a conditional sentence of imprisonment for six months, to be served in the community with strict conditions including home confinement, followed by two years of probation with community service and mandatory counselling, rejecting a conditional discharge or suspended sentence as insufficient.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting her three-year-old son by striking him multiple times on the buttocks, causing extensive bruising, and grabbing him by the face while screaming at him.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought a suspended sentence with three years probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge for three years with conditions including curfew, probation supervision, participation in counselling and anger management programs, and restrictions on contact with the child except as authorized by the Children's Aid Society or family court order.

The court also imposed ancillary orders for DNA collection and a five-year weapons prohibition.