David Ronald Boulet

The offenders were found guilty of uttering a forged document, obstructing justice, and attempted fraud over $5,000 after presenting a forged civil judgment bearing a judge's signature.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences for both.

The court sentenced the first offender, a paralegal with a related record, to three years in custody.

The second offender, a first-time offender with minimal risk of re-offending, received a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) was infringed.

The total delay from charge to the third trial date was 43 months.

The court analyzed the delay periods, attributing significant portions to inherent time requirements, including the illness of Crown counsel and the unavailability of co-accused's counsel.

The court found the institutional delay was 15 months and 18 days, which fell within the Morin guidelines.

Finding no significant prejudice caused by the delay itself, the court dismissed the application.

Following guilty pleas to manslaughter and four counts of assault causing bodily harm arising from a series of random attacks, the Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the offender demonstrated a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour, the evidence did not establish a likelihood of future violence under s. 753(1)(a)(i).

However, the court held that the offender’s conduct showed a substantial degree of indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions under s. 753(1)(a)(ii).

The offender was therefore designated a dangerous offender.

Instead of an indeterminate sentence, the court imposed a determinate sentence of ten years’ imprisonment followed by a ten‑year long‑term supervision order, concluding there was a reasonable expectation that such a regime would adequately protect the public.

Applicants sought to vary or terminate sealing orders made in relation to two search warrants executed on their home in 2013 and 2014.

No items were seized and no charges were laid.

The Crown provided redacted copies of the Informations to Obtain (ITOs), with redactions limited to information that might identify confidential informants.

The applicants challenged the scope of the redactions and sought full access to the ITOs.

The court held that once a search warrant is executed, the warrant and ITO are presumptively accessible to the occupiers of the searched premises, subject only to redactions necessary to protect confidential informant identity.

The court ordered the Crown to produce unredacted copies for judicial review to ensure redactions were not overbroad.

The Crown brought a motion at a preliminary inquiry seeking an order to admit evidence of ten separate attacks on nine victims as similar act evidence on the question of identification against the accused.

The attacks occurred in the Parkdale area of Toronto between December 2009 and April 2011.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault, seven counts of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of second-degree murder.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the ten attacks demonstrated sufficient cumulative similarities to warrant admission as similar fact evidence, despite some dissimilarities in witness descriptions.

The court applied the test from R. v. Arp and R. v. Handy, examining proximity in time, similarity of detail, number of occurrences, and the balance of probative value against prejudicial effect.

The applicant filed multiple human rights applications against various respondents.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the applications had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant requested an adjournment to obtain documents, which was denied.

The applicant failed to attend the summary hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the applications as abandoned due to the applicant's failure to appear.