David E. Harris

The accused brought a Charter motion challenging a search warrant executed at his residence nearly two years after a robbery and firearm discharge offence.

The accused conceded reasonable grounds existed to believe he was the perpetrator but argued there were insufficient grounds to believe evidence would still be found at his residence.

He also argued that the inclusion of bad character evidence in the ITO was improper and that a subsequent cell phone warrant was overbroad.

The court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable to infer that clothing and cell phones would be retained over two years, that bad character evidence of similar robbery offences was relevant at the investigatory stage, and that any potential overbreadth in the cell phone warrant caused no prejudice as no evidence from the phone was tendered at trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision in which the deputy judge awarded the respondent contractor $18,813.37 for flooring installation work.

The appellant had refused to pay the balance of the invoice, alleging defective work, and hired another contractor to remedy the problems.

The Divisional Court found that the deputy judge erred in law by deciding the case primarily on the basis of unjust enrichment, a legal doctrine that had not been pleaded or argued by the parties.

The court held that unjust enrichment was irrelevant to the central contractual issue of whether the contractor had fulfilled its obligations regarding the quality of the work performed.

The appeal was allowed, the decision was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that the trial had not been held within a reasonable time.

The charges were laid on January 16, 2022, with trial scheduled for December 2025, representing a delay of nearly four years.

The Crown had originally charged the applicant with both firearm offences and a possession for the purpose of trafficking charge, which was withdrawn on May 30, 2024.

The court found that the Crown's handling of the drug charge—including indecision about withdrawal, tentative communications, and delays in actually withdrawing the charge—constituted Crown delay that exceeded the Jordan ceiling of 30 months for two-stage proceedings.

The court calculated net delay at approximately 37 months and granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual interference against his step-daughter over a five-year period when she was between four and nine years old.

The complainant's evidence was admitted as a hearsay exception through videotaped police interviews and preliminary hearing testimony.

Two jury trials resulted in hung juries.

The trial judge, applying section 669.2(4) and (5) of the Criminal Code, resolved the case without additional evidence.

The judge found the complainant credible but had significant concerns about the reliability of her evidence regarding the third count, which involved recovered memories disclosed for the first time at the preliminary hearing after a nearly four-year gap.

The judge also questioned the accused's credibility regarding the mattress incident but found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on any count.

Not guilty verdicts were entered on all three counts.

This is an addendum to a Garofoli ruling dismissing an application to quash a search warrant.

The original ruling was released on August 19, 2025.

The application involved a search warrant based substantially on evidence from a confidential informant, requiring extensive redactions to the Information to Obtain to protect informer privilege.

The initial ruling was sent only to the Crown to prevent inadvertent disclosure of the informant's identity.

Upon Crown counsel's request, one sentence in paragraph 13 of the ruling was redacted before release to defence counsel and the trial office.

The unredacted paragraph and pertinent emails are sealed as exhibits to preserve the record.

The applicant sought a declaration that $525,000 provided to his son and daughter-in-law in 2011 to purchase a home was a loan to be held in constructive or resulting trust, rather than a gift.

The respondents contended the money was a gift and that the application was time-barred.

The court found the money was clearly a gift based on the signed gift letter, the applicant's admission of never requesting repayment, his payment of rent to the respondents, and his knowledge that he was not on title.

The court also found the application statute-barred under the Real Property Limitations Act, as the claim accrued in 2011 and the application was brought in 2024.

Summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation.

The appellant was convicted based primarily on the testimony of a developmentally delayed complainant who functioned cognitively at the level of an 8-9 year old.

The complainant alleged multiple assaults and sexual assaults occurring during his employment with the appellant in a landscaping and snow plowing business between August 2015 and October 2018.

The trial judge convicted the appellant based largely on credibility findings regarding the complainant.

The appellate court identified significant errors in the trial judge's treatment of inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including a legal error regarding hearsay classification and a misapprehension of evidence regarding statements to a third-party observer.

The court found these errors, combined with insufficient reasons addressing major inconsistencies, constituted a miscarriage of justice warranting a new trial.

The appellant sought to withdraw guilty pleas to one count of threatening and two counts of failing to comply with bail, alleging that the evidence was fabricated, that he was set up, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and that he was coerced into pleading guilty due to threats and abuse by inmates at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the guilty pleas were voluntary and unequivocal, that the appellant had ample opportunity to voice complaints during the judicial proceedings but did not, and that the appellant's account was neither plausible nor credible.

The court found no merit to the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court found Jamar Bailey guilty of robbery, pointing a firearm, and being in a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm, in connection with a planned online transaction for PlayStation 5s and an X-Box.

The case turned on circumstantial evidence linking Bailey to the Snapchat handle “cookiestoronto,” the presence of a black Mazda 3, and the recent possession of a PlayStation 5.

The court rejected the defence alibi as unreliable and found the eyewitness identification evidence to be of no value.

The court also addressed Charter issues regarding police access to digital evidence, ultimately finding no prejudice.

Bailey was acquitted on charges of possession of a gun without a licence and reckless discharge.

The applicant, Melissa Merritt, challenged the constitutionality of the absence of an appeal route following the dismissal of a directed verdict application and a subsequent mistrial.

She argued that section 7 of the Charter requires an appeal to the Court of Appeal in these circumstances and attacked sections 674 and 675 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the argument, holding that Parliament is entitled to restrict appeals to those provided by statute and that interlocutory appeals are not constitutionally required.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant later pled guilty to manslaughter.

The court sentenced Nicola Owen, convicted of importing almost 8 kilograms of heroin into Canada, to 9 years’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge considered the low purity of the heroin (18%), Owen’s positive presentence report, lack of criminal record, health issues, and other mitigating factors.

The court found that the low purity and unique circumstances justified a sentence below the usual 12–17 year range for such offences.

The decision discusses the relevance of drug purity to sentencing and the importance of proportionality under s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court sentenced Nathaniel Dillon for assault, sexual assault, and threatening, all committed against his then-girlfriend, ZK, on June 25, 2018.

The court found the complainant credible, with physical evidence corroborating her account.

The court considered Dillon’s significant mental health issues, including a history of psychosis and schizophrenia, as a mitigating factor, but not a major one.

The sentence imposed was three years’ imprisonment for sexual assault, with concurrent sentences for assault and threatening, and a recommendation for treatment in a specialized correctional facility.

The court also imposed ancillary orders, including probation, DNA, and weapons prohibitions.

An applicant sought a declaration that properties and bank accounts held jointly with a family member were subject to a resulting trust, not a gift.

This application was brought to protect assets from a judgment creditor, which had obtained a fraud judgment against the family member.

The court addressed two preliminary issues: whether the transfer was a gift or created a resulting trust (requiring a trial), and whether the family member's registration on title necessarily gave them a beneficial interest enforceable by the creditor.

The court dismissed the creditor's argument that land titles registration was conclusive for third-party creditors, distinguishing it from conveyancing cases involving bona fide purchasers.

The court found that the indefeasibility principle of the Land Titles system does not apply to third-party creditors in this context, and therefore, a trial is necessary to determine the true beneficial ownership.

D.S. was sentenced for sexual assault against his stepdaughter, M.M., committed between 2013 and 2014 when she was 19.

The court considered prior uncharged sexual assaults in Alberta (from age 6 to 15) as aggravating factors, proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The sentencing emphasized the extreme frequency and repetition of the assaults, the profound breach of trust by the stepfather, and the catastrophic psychological and emotional impact on the victim, including Borderline Personality Disorder, PTSD, eating disorders, and agoraphobia.

Despite the defence's recommendation of 5-7 years, the court imposed the maximum sentence of 10 years' incarceration, citing the extraordinary gravity of the offence, the devastating impact on the victim, and the offender's high moral culpability, emphasizing denunciation.

Ancillary orders for DNA databank, SOIRA, and non-communication were also made.

The applicant, charged with serious offences, sought to exclude a statement made to police while incarcerated, arguing violations of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel and the common law voluntariness rule.

The court found no s. 10(b) violation as there was no change in jeopardy, but determined the statement was involuntary due to police trickery.

The police deliberately failed to give the primary caution, conducted the interview in English despite knowing the applicant's primary language was Punjabi, and exploited his vulnerability by interviewing him in jail after two weeks of incarceration.

The court disbelieved the officers' testimony that they "forgot" to give the caution.

The statement was ruled inadmissible.

The three accused, Anand Nath, Suliman Raza, and Naqash Abbasi, were found guilty of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a firearm following a shooting at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the offense constituted a terrorism offense, finding that while the motive clause (political, religious, or ideological purpose) was met, the intention clause (to intimidate the public) was not.

The court emphasized the aggravating factors, including the planned and deliberate nature of the crimes, the group plan, the gratuitous violence against bystanders, and the profound impact on victims.

The judge imposed concurrent life sentences for all counts for each offender, along with ancillary orders.

Courtney Dennis was found guilty of importing four kilograms of high-purity cocaine and resisting arrest.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence or, alternatively, six years.

The court found Dennis to be a principal in the importation scheme, not merely a courier, and that he threatened the couriers.

The judge considered the seriousness of the offence, the offender's extensive criminal history (including prior drug trafficking and firearm convictions), and the significant mitigation due to four years of restrictive house arrest bail.

The court imposed a total sentence of 11 years: 10.5 years for importation and 6 months consecutive for resisting arrest, along with ancillary orders.

The respondent, who was in significant arrears of child support, brought a motion requesting the suspension of his support obligations for the summer months and a halt to enforcement actions.

The court dismissed the motion, citing the respondent's poor history of compliance, substantial arrears (nearly $100,000), and previous judicial findings of a lack of credibility and attempts to mislead the court.

The court also declined to order the applicant to provide a travel itinerary or passport/health card copies for the children, leaving it to her discretion.

The plaintiff, Sayed Hoq, brought a motion to correct the names of "John Doe" and "Jane Doe" defendants to Lakhwant Singh and CWH Distribution Services Inc. o/a CW Henderson Distribution, respectively, in a multi-vehicle automobile accident claim.

The motion was brought under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows for correction of incorrectly named parties if there is no non-compensable prejudice.

The court applied the "litigation finger" test, finding the original pleading sufficiently particular for the proposed defendants to know they were the intended targets.

Despite a six-year delay, the court found no non-compensable prejudice, dismissing arguments regarding lost records as speculative and not prejudicial to the defendants.

The motion to correct names was granted.