David A. Harris

The accused applied for leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information To Obtain (ITO) a search warrant at a preliminary inquiry.

The accused sought to examine areas relating to the corroboration of confidential informant (CI) information, the steps taken to corroborate such information, and whether police contaminated the information by reaching out to a CI.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed cross-examination did not meet the threshold test established in R. v. Garofoli and R. v. Dawson.

The court held that a preliminary inquiry is not the appropriate venue for such cross-examination, particularly given the risk of identifying confidential informers and the fact that the trial judge would be better positioned to address these issues through the Garofoli procedure.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography between August 26 and October 19, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence of imprisonment and imposed a custodial sentence of seven months (less pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the accused had mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, and strong family support, the serious nature of the offence—involving over 7,900 images and 64 videos depicting young children in explicit sexual acts—required denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance for ten years, a ten-year section 161 order restricting contact with children and internet use, a five-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized computers.

The offender pleaded guilty to historical indecent assault, sexual interference, and breach of recognizance involving multiple young male victims over several decades.

The court accepted a joint submission, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for adult sexual predators who exploit children.

The offender was sentenced to a global term equivalent to 33.5 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, along with lifetime weapons and section 161 prohibition orders.

The offender pled guilty to possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after operating an illegal storefront dispensary.

The Crown sought a $5,000 fine, while the offender sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing, noting the offender's positive background and the changing social attitudes towards marihuana.

However, the court found that a discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the commercial nature of the operation and the need for general deterrence.

A fine of $5,000 was imposed.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device and several provincial driving offences.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the accused's credibility, ultimately rejecting his testimony that he had attempted to provide a proper sample.

The court accepted the evidence of the police officers that the accused was intentionally thwarting the test by not sealing his lips, sticking his tongue in the mouthpiece, and blowing short bursts.

The accused was found guilty on all charges.

The offender pled guilty to breaching a section 161 order and breach of probation.

The Crown sought 15 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought 6 months.

The court noted the offender's history of breaching court orders shortly after being released from custody.

Emphasizing the need for a more onerous sentence to deter repeated breaches, the court imposed a sentence of 10 months' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, with no further probation order.

The accused pled guilty to attempted murder after shooting the victim in the leg and head, leaving the victim with permanent brain damage.

The Crown sought 18 years' imprisonment, while the accused sought 12 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the accused to 16 years' imprisonment.

The court granted enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, plus an additional 133 days for harsh conditions due to lockdowns and protective custody, resulting in a net sentence of 13 years and 5 months.

The accused was charged with ten offences spanning from 2014 to 2017, including multiple assaults, sexual assault, mischief to property, threatening death, breaking and entering with intent, and criminal harassment against the same complainant.

The trial turned primarily on the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence in its various forms: her statement to police, her testimony in court, her affidavit, and a 911 call recording.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly regarding whether she had been threatened with a firearm and her claims of being under the influence of alcohol.

The court distinguished between credibility (sincerity) and reliability (accuracy) and emphasized that demeanor alone cannot support a conviction where significant inconsistencies exist.

The court convicted on counts 2 (assault), 3 (mischief), 4 (sexual assault), and 9 (mischief), and acquitted on the remaining counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test results under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the police lacked reasonable suspicion for the approved screening device demand and reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

The accused also challenged whether the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The court found the police had reasonable suspicion and reasonable and probable grounds, dismissed the Charter application, and found the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession, purchase, or receipt of unmarked cigarettes for the purpose of sale contrary to Section 29(1) of the Tobacco Act.

The Crown sought a fine of $29,819.00 plus 15 months probation.

The defendant sought a suspended sentence with two years probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, finding exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the statutory minimum fine of $89,959.25 under Section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court considered the defendant's financial hardship, unemployment due to vision loss, administrative penalties totaling $161,310.26, and the fact that the defendant was a delivery person rather than the primary actor in the scheme.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography, two counts of sexual interference, and two counts of making child pornography.

The Crown proceeded by indictment on all charges.

The sentencing court imposed a global sentence of five years and three months imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court found that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives given the serious nature of the offences involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of young children.

The defendant had abused the trust of close friends by sexually abusing their children and recording the abuse.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime sex offender registration requirement, a lifetime prohibition on contact with children under 16, and restrictions on Internet use.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, abduction, and breach of probation, all alleged to have occurred in Milton on August 25, 2017.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness identification by the victim's mother (KT) of the accused as the person who attempted to abduct her child.

Although the court found KT to be credible and sincere in her belief, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the perpetrator.

The identification suffered from significant frailties, including limited observation time, cross-racial identification, and inconsistencies between KT's description and the accused's appearance.

The court acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault.

The Crown sought probation while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge for three years, finding it was in the accused's best interests and not contrary to the public interest.

The accused was a young man, recently arrived in Canada on a student permit, with no prior criminal record, who demonstrated remorse.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The court declined to make a Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, finding that a conditional discharge does not constitute a sentence within the meaning of the applicable legislation.

The appellant appealed his convictions on four counts relating to operating an electrical contracting business without a valid license and failing to file inspection applications.

The trial proceeded in the appellant's absence.

The appeal court found that the trial judge erred in law by admitting: (1) statements made by the appellant to an investigator without a voir dire on voluntariness and whether the investigator was a person in authority; (2) business records from the Electrical Safety Association without compliance with hearsay exceptions; and (3) evidence regarding identification was properly admitted.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and ordered a new trial with the appellant required to appear in person.

The court also commented critically on the sentencing decision, noting the trial judge imposed imprisonment beyond what the Crown requested without proper justification or notice to the absent defendant.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The sole issue was whether the demand for a breath sample was valid, specifically whether it was made "forthwith" as required by law.

The constable delayed approximately five to seven minutes between detecting alcohol on the accused's breath and making the demand, during which time he conducted a records check and reflected on which demand to make.

The court found that the delay was not justified and that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the demand was made forthwith.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm on November 1, 2011 and assault on November 9, 2017, both involving his wife.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of one year followed by two years probation, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, finding that despite the seriousness of the offences, the accused's good character, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and collateral consequences warranted this disposition, which would not be contrary to the public interest.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, mischief, criminal harassment, and breaking and entering against a domestic partner.

The Crown sought to introduce the complainant's audio-recorded statement to police as hearsay evidence for the truth of its contents after the complainant recanted or expressed uncertainty about portions of her original statement at trial.

The court ruled on the admissibility of the hearsay statement under the principled exception established in R. v. Khan, applying the twin criteria of necessity and reliability, and considering whether the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of luring, one count of voyeurism, and one count of possession of child pornography involving six victims aged 12-14 years.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment followed by three years probation, while defence counsel sought six months imprisonment followed by one year probation.

The court imposed six months imprisonment (less pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years probation, finding that while the offences were serious and involved vulnerable young victims, significant mitigating factors were present including the accused's youth, guilty plea, lack of prior record, strong rehabilitation potential, and the absence of certain aggravating factors such as face-to-face contact or substantial child pornography collections.

The court declined to make a section 161 order, instead incorporating protective conditions within the probation order.

The accused pleaded guilty to making visual recordings of three female employees for a sexual purpose by placing a recording device under their dresses while at their place of employment between May 29, 2015 and September 16, 2015, contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily with the accused's consent.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with probation for three years, finding that while the offence was serious and involved a breach of trust as a senior vice-president, the accused's lack of criminal record, guilty plea, psychiatric assessment indicating low risk of reoffence, and collateral consequences warranted this disposition rather than a custodial sentence.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, abduction, and breach of probation.

The accused brought applications to exclude eyewitness identification evidence on three grounds: (1) to ensure a fair trial; (2) on the basis that probative value was outweighed by prejudicial effect; and (3) pursuant to section 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on detention exceeding 24 hours.

The court found that while the photo lineup process had some deficiencies relative to the Sophonow Inquiry recommendations, these did not warrant exclusion but rather affected the weight to be given the evidence.

The court also found that although the accused's Charter rights were infringed by detention beyond 24 hours, the identification evidence was not obtained in a manner that infringed Charter rights and admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

All applications were dismissed.