Davin M.K. Garg

The Ontario Court of Justice found Larry Bomberry guilty of possessing methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possessing property obtained by crime.

Despite thin evidence of active trafficking at the time of arrest, the court held that the quantity of drugs (62.48 grams) and over $1,400 in cash supported the inference that Bomberry possessed the drugs as part of an ongoing trafficking operation.

The court rejected Bomberry’s claim that the drugs were for personal use based on implausible explanations for his cash, inconsistent timeline evidence, and expert testimony on trafficking indicia.

The decision applies the W.(D.) principles and the Villaroman circumstantial evidence framework to conclude that trafficking was the only reasonable inference.

The applicant, Joshua Belovari, sought to sever counts of dangerous driving and criminal harassment, which arose from two separate incidents about a month apart, into separate trials.

The Crown opposed the severance, indicating an intention to bring a similar fact application.

The court denied the severance application, finding that the interests of justice did not require it.

Despite a thin factual nexus, the unique manner of the alleged dangerous driving created a legal nexus supporting a similar fact application.

The court prioritized the societal interest in efficient proceedings and avoiding multiplicity, noting that a single judge-alone trial would mitigate prejudice and prevent inconsistent rulings on similar fact evidence.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against the accused, involving his young daughter.

The alleged incidents occurred in 2017, with disclosure made approximately five years later.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility, citing the delay in disclosure and a potential motive to fabricate linked to family court proceedings.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, dismissing the defence's challenges.

The accused's denials were rejected due to inconsistencies with his prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, which was admitted as similar fact evidence.

The court convicted the accused on two of the four alleged incidents (sexual assault and sexual interference for the second and fourth incidents), finding the elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while acquitting on the other two due to insufficient reliability or certainty regarding specific details.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained via search warrants, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained material omissions regarding the credibility and reliability of the primary source.

The court found that the police affiant breached the "full, fair, and frank" disclosure obligation due to severe negligence and inexperience, which subverted the pre-authorization process.

Although the corrected ITO could still have provided reasonable grounds for the warrants, the court exercised its residual discretion to set them aside, deeming the police conduct as "bad faith" for the purpose of this discretion.

Consequently, the searches were unauthorized and breached section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant test under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court concluded that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct and the impact on the applicant's privacy interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence of serious firearms offences, leading to the exclusion of the handgun, conducted energy weapon, and brass knuckles found.

This criminal trial addressed charges against Gianni Deluca, including discharge of a firearm, firearm possession, and possession of fentanyl and fluorofentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that Deluca acted in self-defence when discharging the firearm, leading to an acquittal on that charge.

However, the court rejected Deluca's explanation that he acquired the satchel containing the firearm and drugs during the altercation, finding beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed these items prior to the incident.

Consequently, Deluca was found guilty of the drug and firearm possession charges, including breaching a weapons prohibition order, but not guilty of possessing proceeds of crime.

This ex parte application sought an emergency firearms prohibition order under the newly amended s. 110.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the order, finding that the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe it was not desirable for the subject to possess firearms and that an immediate order was necessary for safety.

The decision also addressed ancillary orders for a private hearing, sealing of information, and redaction of identifying details to protect the applicant's security, clarifying the application of these new provisions.

Corey Parnell was found guilty of dangerous driving and flight from police.

The court addressed the appropriate sentence and a Charter remedy for a two-day overhold in custody.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to four months and a driving prohibition, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court imposed a global custodial term of 120 days, reduced to 60 days as a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter for the overhold, and a two-year driving prohibition in addition to the custodial term.

The Crown applied under s. 715.1(1) of the Criminal Code to admit a young complainant's video-recorded statement made five years after the alleged sexual offences.

The defence argued the delay was unreasonable, especially given an earlier "golden opportunity" for disclosure.

The court granted the application, finding the statement was made within a reasonable time, considering the complainant's age, the nature of the abuse, and the chaotic circumstances of the earlier police interview.

The court emphasized a holistic, case-specific analysis for "reasonable time" and rejected the "golden opportunity" argument as determinative.

A discrete portion of the statement was redacted.

The Crown applied to admit extrinsic evidence of the respondent's prior discreditable conduct for a similar fact purpose in a sexual offence trial.

The respondent was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his young daughter.

The extrinsic evidence related to a prior guilty plea for corrupting a child, where the respondent was found masturbating near the sleeping complainant.

The court found that the probative value of the extrinsic evidence, demonstrating a situation-specific propensity for sexual activity near the complainant in her bedroom while she slept, outweighed its prejudicial effect, given the strong similarities in circumstances and temporal proximity.

The application was granted with limitations on the scope of evidence.

Corey Parnell was charged with dangerous driving and flight from police.

He argued non-culpability due to police conduct and sought a stay of proceedings for unlawful pre-trial detention.

The court found him guilty of both charges, rejecting his defences of reasonable excuse and necessity.

While acknowledging a Charter breach for two days of unlawful pre-trial custody, the court declined to stay proceedings, finding an alternative remedy (sentence reduction) more appropriate and that the integrity of the justice system would not be harmed by continuing the trial, partly due to defence counsel's role in the communication breakdown.

Chris Vagenos pleaded guilty to five offences, including possession of psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of an undertaking.

The offences stemmed from his employment at a store selling magic mushrooms, and he breached his undertaking by returning to work there shortly after his initial arrest.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with a 30-month probation order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, emphasizing rehabilitation and finding the discharge not contrary to the public interest despite the breach of undertaking.