David A. King

The applicants sought broad disclosure and privileged prosecutorial communications to support an abuse of process claim after new charges were laid following a prior stay of related charges arising from the same investigation.

The court held that the tax evasion allegations were demonstrably independent of the prior stay because the investigation had been ongoing well before the original takedown and continued throughout.

However, the timing and surrounding circumstances of the later money laundering and possession of property obtained by crime charges created a sufficient threshold basis to review prosecutorial discretion and order targeted disclosure.

Applying the prosecutorial-discretion abuse standard and the innocence-at-stake framework, the court concluded solicitor-client privilege could be pierced as a last resort to test whether those charges were laid to circumvent the earlier stay.

Michael Simonelli’s application was dismissed, while Raffaele Simonelli’s application was allowed in part.

The offender, a 50-year-old college professor and first offender, pleaded guilty to importing prohibited firearm parts (selector switches for a Glock) and possession of a prohibited firearm (a Derringer pistol).

The Crown sought a reformatory sentence of real jail, while the defence sought a 12-month conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's exceptional background, genuine remorse, and low risk of reoffending, balanced against the extreme danger of fully automatic firearms.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served under house arrest, followed by 18 months of probation, 200 hours of community service, a $7,500 victim surcharge, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

This is an application by the accused, Jermaine Chapman, under s.520 of the Criminal Code to review a detention order.

The accused sought release based on a new bail plan with strong sureties and electronic monitoring, public interest concerns due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and potential trial delays.

The court found no error in the original justice's decision to detain and determined that the health emergency did not outweigh other considerations for detention.

The court also noted that while trial delays might occur, detention remained necessary and could be reviewed in the future.

The application for review was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery using a firearm and discharging a firearm at a motor vehicle with recklessness as to life or safety.

The offences occurred on July 11, 2017, in Burlington, Ontario.

The accused responded to an online advertisement for sexual services, and after a dispute with the service provider, returned to the motel armed with a firearm.

He robbed the motel clerk at gunpoint and later returned to shoot at a vehicle carrying the service provider and her driver.

The sentencing judge imposed a global sentence of eight years imprisonment, with credit for 735 days of pre-sentence custody at a 1.5:1 ratio.

The court rejected the defence submission for a provincial sentence at St. Lawrence Valley Correctional and Treatment Centre, finding insufficient evidence that such placement would better serve the principles of sentencing.

The accused was convicted following trial of assault, mischief to property (two counts), and sexual assault against his domestic partner over a period spanning from January 2015 to January 2017.

The Crown sought imprisonment for two years less one day followed by probation.

The defence sought a shorter custodial sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by three years probation on the sexual assault charge, with concurrent one-day sentences on the remaining charges.

The court considered sentencing principles including proportionality, denunciation, and general deterrence, while also accounting for the accused's lack of prior criminal record, positive background, and difficult childhood.

Following convictions for lottery fraud, the Crown sought restitution, forfeiture, and fines in lieu of forfeiture against the accused.

The court ordered restitution of $12.5 million jointly and severally against the two primary offenders, declining to add interest.

The court also ordered forfeiture of approximately $7.5 million in seized funds, after returning specific amounts to innocent third parties.

Finally, the court imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture of $2.3 million each on the two primary offenders, with a six-year term of imprisonment in default of payment.

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 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.

This decision addresses a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment in default of payment of fines in lieu of forfeiture under s.462.37(4) of the Criminal Code.

The applicants, previously convicted of fraud, argued that these provisions violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mandatory minimum terms were not grossly disproportionate under s.12, considering the legislative purpose of disgorging ill-gotten gains and the availability of other Criminal Code provisions allowing for flexibility (e.g., time to pay, proportionate reduction for partial payment, inability to pay as a reasonable excuse).

The court also found no violation of s.7, as offenders have opportunities to make submissions at various stages of the process.

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 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.

The appellant, Fritz Michael Stoeckler, appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit ("over 80").

The appeal challenged the trial judge's findings regarding reasonable suspicion for a breath demand and the dismissal of the mouth alcohol argument.

The court, applying a standard of palpable and overriding error for factual findings, dismissed the appeal.

It affirmed that the officer had reasonable grounds for the breath demand, as the smell of alcohol, consistent with prior consumption, did not provide a rational basis to suspect residual mouth alcohol that would invalidate the roadside screening device result.

Manuel Pereira appealed his sentence for dangerous driving and stunt driving, specifically challenging a 24-month driving prohibition.

The appellant argued that the sentencing Justice failed to provide sufficient reasons and did not adequately consider mitigating factors, rendering the driving ban demonstrably unfit.

The Crown sought dismissal of the appeal, asserting the sentence was fair.

The Superior Court of Justice, applying a standard of deference to the sentencing judge, dismissed the appeal, finding the driving ban was entirely fit given the appellant's egregious driving record and the severity of the current offences, distinguishing his case from those of first-time offenders.

The accused were charged with multiple offences relating to the theft and fraudulent claiming of a $12.5 million winning Super 7 lottery ticket.

The Crown alleged that a convenience store clerk stole the winning free play ticket from a customer and subsequently had his daughter claim the prize.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including lottery terminal data, cellphone records, and banking records, the court found the father guilty of theft, fraud, and possession of stolen property.

The daughter was found guilty of fraud and possession of stolen property.

The son was found guilty of stealing other lottery tickets but acquitted of the charges relating to the $12.5 million ticket.

All accused were acquitted of money laundering.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing bodily harm to his eight-year-old son.

The offence involved a single-vehicle collision on Highway 401 with a blood alcohol concentration of 195 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

The victim sustained severe injuries including a cervical spine fracture requiring surgical stabilization, resulting in permanent physical limitations and ongoing psychological trauma.

The accused had a prior impaired driving conviction in 2011.

The court imposed a sentence balancing denunciation and deterrence against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, genuine remorse, good character when not drinking, and significant collateral consequences including loss of employment and family breakdown.

The accused was convicted of sexual offences and awaited sentencing and a dangerous offender application.

His retained counsel was suspended by the Law Society and failed to communicate with the accused or assist in transferring the file.

Given the serious consequences facing the in-custody accused, the court appointed amicus curiae to assist the court and protect the accused's rights, and adjourned the matter.

The applicant, a police officer charged with fabricating evidence and obstructing justice, was severed from her co-accused.

Prior to her own trial, the Crown subpoenaed her to testify at the trial of her co-accused.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that compelling her to testify breached her right to remain silent and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the predominant purpose of calling her was not to obtain incriminating evidence for her own trial, and that any prejudice was cured by the statutory protections against derivative use of compelled testimony under section 13 of the Charter and section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The applicant, a police officer charged with obstructing justice and fabricating evidence, sought a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of solicitor-client privilege.

During the investigation, her seized cell phone revealed text messages with a lawyer retained by the police association.

The court found the investigators' review and subsequent disclosure of these messages to co-accused was inadvertent and minimal.

Applying the tests from Regan and O'Connor, the court concluded there was no prejudice to the applicant's right to a fair trial and dismissed the application for a stay.

The applicants laid private informations against six police officers for assault and perjury arising from a 2006 incident involving the execution of a Feeney warrant.

After several pre-enquete hearings, the Crown intervened and stayed the charges, citing no reasonable prospect of conviction and no public interest.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel the return of the informations and a new pre-enquete hearing.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown had the statutory power to stay the proceedings under s. 579 of the Criminal Code and that there was no evidence of flagrant impropriety by the Crown to justify judicial interference.

The accused was charged with committing an indecent act by exposing his genitals and masturbating in a public place on a highway in the presence of a minor, and with criminal harassment by repeatedly following the minor and causing her to fear for her safety.

The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence relating to a subsequent incident on Highway 401.

The court admitted the similar fact evidence and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused subsequently brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the total delay of 17 months and 5 days (after deducting defence delay) fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan for provincial court proceedings.