Deepak B. Paradkar

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded restricted firearm after police entered a residence without a warrant and arrested him.

Officers responded to a 911 call for a possible domestic dispute with screaming, and simultaneously received information from a major crime unit conducting surveillance that a male inside had a gun in a satchel based on confidential sources.

The accused applied to exclude the firearm under section 8 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding the warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances given the combination of the 911 call and the reliable confidential source information indicating a firearm was present in a potentially volatile domestic situation.

Absent a Charter breach, the accused conceded the case and was found guilty.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm without a licence or authorization and possessing a firearm with an altered serial number.

The offences occurred when police discovered the firearm in a vehicle during a cannabis investigation.

The offender was 22 years old at the time with no prior criminal record.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of 16 months and 22 days to be served in the community, followed by three years of probation, after crediting pre-sentence custody.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, considering the offender's youth, guilty plea, remorse, significant mental health challenges stemming from childhood abuse, and positive steps toward rehabilitation.

This decision addresses the lawfulness of a warrantless arrest and subsequent searches, including multiple strip searches, of John Kikiantonis by Toronto Police Service officers.

The court found the arrest unlawful due to insufficient reasonable and probable grounds, primarily relying on uncorroborated confidential source information and subjective officer observations.

The court held that the strip searches violated sections 7 and 8 of the Charter, emphasizing the intrusive nature of strip searches and the necessity of case-specific grounds and proper documentation.

The failure to properly record the strip search and the lack of opportunity for re-consultation with counsel after authorization of the strip search were also Charter breaches.

The evidence obtained was excluded under section 24(2), resulting in an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed Adam Chiarelli’s appeal from his conviction for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found that the trial judge erred by failing to provide a limiting instruction regarding inadmissible opinion evidence given by police officers about items found in the vehicle being “consistent with drug trafficking.” The court dismissed other grounds of appeal, including the lack of a Vetrovec caution and the reasonableness of the verdict, but concluded the error was not minor and the curative proviso did not apply.

A new trial was ordered.

The accused, charged with multiple firearms and stolen vehicle offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 and s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being detained on the tertiary ground.

The accused proposed a new release plan involving his father, a correctional officer residing in New Brunswick, as a surety.

The court found that the new release plan constituted a material change in circumstances and that the Crown had not shown that continued detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was granted interim judicial release on strict conditions, including house arrest and significant financial pledges from sureties.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences related to the importation and possession of 53 handguns, 6 machine guns, and 80 high-capacity magazines.

The accused acted as a courier, receiving the firearms from a boat on the St. Lawrence River.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the unprecedented number of firearms, the profit motive, and the risk to the community, against mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and strict bail compliance.

The court imposed a total sentence of 11 years in custody, comprising 10.5 years for the firearms offences and 6 months consecutive for the Customs Act offences.

Michael Bennett and Dylan Griggs were found guilty after trial of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the serious nature of the drugs, the profit motive, the large quantities involved, and the fact that both were first offenders without drug dependence issues.

Credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions (house arrest, curfew) was factored into the sentences.

Bennett was sentenced to a total of five years in penitentiary, and Griggs was sentenced to a total of eleven years in penitentiary.

Automatic weapons prohibitions, DNA orders, and victim surcharges were also imposed, and seized cash and offence-related property were ordered forfeited.

The accused, Craig Grant, faced six counts related to the possession of a firearm, an extended magazine, and ammunition, following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The sole issue at trial was possession, which the Crown sought to prove through circumstantial evidence.

The defence proposed an alternative theory, suggesting another individual present in the residence could have quickly placed the items in the accused's satchel and nightstand upon police entry.

The court found the accused's testimony to be incredible and unreliable.

After assessing the circumstantial evidence and the defence's alternative theory, the court found the defence's explanation implausible due to insufficient time for the alleged actions to occur during the police entry.

Consequently, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was in possession of the seized items and found him guilty on all counts.

Nitish Verma was convicted by a jury of importing 13.739 kg of opium.

The Crown sought a nine-year sentence, while the defence argued for seven years, citing mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of criminal record, positive community contributions, and strong support network.

The court considered sentencing principles, including general deterrence and denunciation, and the less addictive nature of opium compared to other Schedule I substances.

Despite the large quantity of drugs and profit motive being aggravating factors, the court found the offender to be a courier, not a principal, and noted his high rehabilitative prospects.

A sentence of seven years was imposed, along with a DNA order, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a forfeiture order.

The accused, R.V., was charged with multiple counts including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, assault, attempting to choke, and uttering threats against the complainant, N.C., stemming from two alleged incidents.

The defense argued consensual sexual activity and denied other allegations.

The court applied the W.(D.) analysis to assess conflicting evidence.

While the accused's evidence was found not credible due to dishonesty and untruthfulness about the relationship, the complainant's credibility was also significantly undermined by untruthful testimony regarding the existence and disappearance of key voicemail and social media messages.

Despite the Crown's arguments for corroborating evidence, the court found the complainant's untruthfulness on material issues created a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused on all counts.

This ruling addresses an application by Ramin Rayegan-Tafreshi for leave to cross-examine affiants of Information to Obtain (ITO) documents related to wiretap authorizations and a general warrant.

The applicant sought to challenge the investigative necessity for the initial wiretap authorization and the reasonable grounds for the general warrant.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant regarding the wiretap's investigative necessity, finding that the ITO contained conclusory and potentially misleading statements about alternative investigative techniques.

However, the court denied leave to cross-examine the affiant regarding the general warrant, concluding that the applicant's challenge was a facial attack on the warrant's validity that could be addressed through legal argument without cross-examination.

The applicant challenged the issuance of a search warrant and his subsequent arrest, arguing violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The application sought to exclude seized evidence, including a handgun, cocaine, and currency, under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant, applying principles of warrant review, and found that the authorizing justice had reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of drug-related offenses would be found at the specified address.

The court concluded that the observed interactions were consistent with drug transactions and that the applicant's connection to the address supported the probability of finding evidence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no Charter violations were found.

The accused, Ali Lalji, was charged with conspiracy to import cocaine into Australia.

The Crown relied on evidence extracted from seized cellular phones (Cellebrite data) and the testimony of a co-conspirator.

The court first ruled section 36 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act unconstitutional for violating Charter sections 7 and 12, as it fundamentally alters hearsay admissibility rules inconsistent with a fair trial.

Despite this, the Crown's evidence, particularly the Cellebrite data, proved Lalji's membership in the conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that Lalji either had actual knowledge that the contraband was cocaine or was wilfully blind to that fact.

Lalji was found guilty as charged.

The accused, Malik Ahmad, was charged with manslaughter following a physical altercation at a mall that resulted in the death of Mr. Baig due to a catastrophic head injury.

The Crown alleged a consent fight where Ahmad pushed Baig, causing him to fall and hit his head.

The defence argued insufficient evidence of an unlawful act or intent to cause serious bodily harm.

The court found that while an altercation occurred and Baig's death was caused by hitting his head, there was no conclusive evidence to determine what precipitated the fall (e.g., push, punch, slip).

The court also gave less weight to the expert medical testimony regarding certain facial injuries due to a lack of information on medical intervention at the scene.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused caused the death unlawfully and acquitted him.

The defendant, Rapinder Bains, applied for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, arguing that police investigator DC Khan lacked reasonable suspicion when providing an opportunity to commit a drug trafficking offence.

The court found that DC Khan possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion, supported by a confidential human source (CHS) tip and prior text communications indicating drug trafficking activity associated with the target phone number.

The court emphasized that the defendant's unsolicited communication initiated the interaction and that the case did not involve random virtue-testing.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant, facing extradition to the United States on charges of human smuggling, applied for release on bail.

The United States alleged the applicant led a scheme to smuggle Indian nationals into the US from Canada.

The court found that the applicant failed to justify his release on the primary ground, as he posed a significant flight risk given his tenuous immigration status in Canada, lack of assets, and the strong case against him.

The court also found detention was necessary on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail application was dismissed.

The defendants in a drug and proceeds offence case sought standing to challenge search warrants under the Charter.

The court dismissed the application for standing for all defendants except one (Taylor Brennan, whose charges were later stayed), finding that they failed to prove a sufficient connection to the searched properties to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy on a balance of probabilities.

The decision reiterates that the onus is on the defendant to prove standing and discusses the application of the Edwards factors and the normative vs. categorical approach to Charter standing.

The applicant, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought an application to exclude evidence seized by police during the execution of a general warrant and upon his arrest.

The court previously found that the applicant's Charter rights were breached.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court found that the police conduct was serious, noting that the lead investigator provided misleading information in the Information to Obtain (ITO) regarding the necessity of a general warrant.

Although the evidence was reliable and essential to the Crown's case, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious state misconduct.

The application was granted, and the evidence was excluded.

The applicant brought an application to quash a general warrant and exclude evidence obtained during a covert entry and search of his residence.

The police had obtained a general warrant that authorized them to enter the applicant's unit once identified, provided they determined there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of drug trafficking was inside.

The Superior Court of Justice found the general warrant invalid on two grounds: it impermissibly delegated the judicial function of determining reasonable and probable grounds to the police, and it violated s. 487.01(1)(c) of the Criminal Code because the police could have obtained a standard search warrant under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act once the unit was identified.

The applicant's s. 8 Charter rights were breached, and a subsequent hearing was ordered to determine the admissibility of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The applicant brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained from a search of his residence and motor vehicle, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

The court found that the affiant included misleading information regarding a witness's belief about whether a firearm was real and whether it was kept at the applicant's residence.

Concluding that the affiant lacked reasonable and probable grounds to authorize the search, the court found a breach of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the serious impact of the breach on the applicant's privacy interests in his home.