David A. Fairgrieve

A young person was found guilty after trial of three firearm-related offences: possession of a prohibited firearm, occupying a motor vehicle containing a prohibited firearm, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The offences arose from a single occurrence on September 23, 2016, involving a loaded Mossberg 12-gauge sawed-off shotgun found in a vehicle.

The Crown sought 6 to 9 months in custody followed by probation.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish that the offences met the "exceptional case" threshold under section 39(1)(d) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, which is required to impose custody on a non-violent offence.

The court imposed a non-custodial sentence consisting of community service and probation, emphasizing the statutory prohibition against general deterrence in youth sentencing and the requirement to impose the least restrictive sentence capable of achieving rehabilitation.

A young person was charged with three firearm-related offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act: possession of a prohibited firearm, occupying a motor vehicle knowing a prohibited weapon was present, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Crown's case relied on admissions by defence counsel regarding the accuracy of photographs, surveillance video, and police evidence.

The sole issue at trial was whether the Crown proved the defendant's knowledge and control of the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the defendant's exclusive control over the vehicle, his placement of the firearm in the car, and his post-offence conduct, compelled only one reasonable inference: that the defendant knew the loaded shotgun was in the vehicle.

The defendant was found guilty on all three counts.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of heroin and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused initially pleaded not guilty to the trafficking charges but guilty to simple possession.

The Crown rejected the pleas and the trial proceeded.

The accused testified that the drugs were for personal use, funded by online poker winnings.

The court found the accused's evidence incredible due to numerous inconsistencies with statements made to an addiction medicine specialist and the mathematical impossibility of affording such quantities on welfare income alone.

The court concluded the accused was an "addict trafficker" who possessed the drugs to sell them to fund his own addiction.

Both charges were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two accused pleaded guilty to theft over and mischief under relating to a jewelry store theft of $64,000 worth of jewelry in Toronto on December 12, 2016.

The Crown and defence counsel jointly submitted for a "time served" disposition with 12 months probation.

The court rejected the joint submission as contrary to the public interest, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Pre-sentence reports revealed significant criminal histories and substance abuse issues not disclosed at the time of the guilty pleas.

The court imposed 8 months in reformatory for Flores and 90 days in jail for Criado, applying the public interest test from R. v. Anthony-Cook.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80" following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge during trial.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7, 8, and 10(b).

The Crown conceded a section 8 breach regarding the timing of the approved screening device breath demand.

The court found that while a technical Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) as the breach was minor, made in good faith, and had limited impact on the accused's rights.

The court also found the breath tests were conducted "as soon as practicable" within the statutory requirement.

The accused was convicted of the "over 80" offence.

The accused was charged with two offences: driving with an excessive blood alcohol level contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and possession of a prohibited weapon (a centrifugal force knife) contrary to s. 91(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging racial profiling by the arresting officer, claiming he was arbitrarily detained in violation of s. 9 of the Charter.

The trial judge rejected the racial profiling allegation, finding the officer conducted a legitimate R.I.D.E. spot-check and that the accused's race played no role in the detention.

The trial judge found the officer credible and the accused's evidence unreliable on key points.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with assault against a female coworker at a long-term care facility.

The complainant alleged the accused grabbed her by the neck and upper arms and forcibly ejected her from a room after she confronted him about stolen food.

The accused denied the assault, claiming any contact was accidental or in self-defence.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility and found the accused's evidence unreliable and contradicted by the complainant's testimony, which was corroborated by photographs of injuries and the complainant's emotional state immediately after the incident.

The court rejected the self-defence claim as the complainant posed no physical threat.

The accused was found guilty.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with five offences relating to human trafficking and prostitution involving a single adult victim.

The Crown alleged the accused recruited and transported the victim from Ontario to Calgary for the purpose of exploitation, received material benefits from prostitution, exercised control over the victim's movements, and procured her as a prostitute.

The accused was discharged on the threat charge due to lack of evidence.

The court found insufficient evidence of an exploitative purpose under the Criminal Code definition to commit on the human trafficking and material benefit charges.

The accused was committed to trial on the remaining two charges (exercising control and procuring).

The court determined that the trial should proceed in Thunder Bay rather than Toronto, as the substantive offences occurred primarily in Alberta with only incidental conduct in Ontario.

A preliminary inquiry into eight charges arising from the shooting of a victim in a Toronto parking lot on July 16, 2014.

Three co-accused were charged with attempted murder, conspiracy to commit murder, firearm offences, and assault with a weapon.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the victim's testimony and circumstantial evidence including phone records and security camera footage.

Defence counsel conceded the sufficiency of evidence identifying each accused's role at the scene.

The court applied the Sheppard test and found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on all charges.

Four defendants—two corporations and two individuals—were charged with twelve counts of offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a fatal accident on May 12, 2008, at a condominium construction site in Toronto.

A piece of cast iron pipe fell from the 23rd floor and struck a senior supervisor, Emilio Piccinin, causing his death.

A former co-defendant, Maple Leaf Structural Ltd., pleaded guilty to one charge.

The remaining defendants pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial.

The court found that while Maple Leaf bore primary responsibility for the accident, the remaining defendants exercised due diligence and did not breach their statutory duties under the Construction Projects Regulation.

All charges against the remaining defendants were dismissed.

Appellants appealed sentences imposed for trading in real estate without registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The trial court imposed fines of $2,500 per count on each defendant (totalling $20,000 each).

The appellants challenged the fines as harsh and excessive.

The appellate court found the trial court erred in principle by failing to inquire into the defendants' financial circumstances and imposed fines that were clearly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The court allowed the appeals and imposed substantially reduced sentences.

The accused, a personal care attendant at a long-term care facility, was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of two elderly female residents with advanced dementia.

The Crown proceeded by indictment on four counts arising from two separate incidents in December 2011.

The accused was acquitted on three counts but convicted on one count of sexual assault.

The court found that while the Crown failed to prove direct penile contact as required for the sexual exploitation charge, the conduct constituting the sexual assault—allowing himself to be undressed while caring for a naked resident with his genitals in close proximity to her face—violated the resident's sexual integrity and constituted sexual assault under the objective test established in R. v. Chase.

An appeal from convictions under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The appellant was convicted of three offences: constructing a new home without being registered as a builder, commencing construction without notifying Tarion and paying the prescribed fee, and knowingly furnishing false information in an enrolment application.

The appeal court found that the trial court erred in admitting documentary evidence without compliance with the best evidence rule and without proper authentication.

The court also found that hearsay evidence was improperly admitted.

As a result, there was insufficient admissible evidence to support the convictions, and the appeal was allowed with acquittals substituted.