Deepak B. Paradkar

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter application to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading and failed to disclose reasonable grounds.

The court applied the standard of review for search warrants, finding that despite some minor errors and omissions, the amplified record contained reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on which the warrant could have issued.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was involved in a bank fraud scheme and that evidence would be found in his home and vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, Ravinder Kainth, admitted guilt to child luring but sought a stay of proceedings due to police entrapment.

The court found that the police engaged in random virtue testing by posing as a 14-year-old girl on a casual sexual encounter website without prior reasonable suspicion that the applicant was interested in sexual activity with minors.

The court applied the "bright line" test from R. v. Ahmad, concluding that the officer's immediate disclosure of being 14 years old, in the context of the applicant's general sexual ad, constituted an overt opportunity to commit the offence before reasonable suspicion was established.

The court ruled that the police overstepped their bounds, constituting an abuse of process, and stayed the prosecution.

Sentencing following convictions after trial for child sexual offences arising from repeated sexual touching, exposure, and an invitation to a child complainant to touch the offender for a sexual purpose.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, applying the proportionality principle in s. 718.1 of the Criminal Code and treating the complainant's age and the offender's abuse of a position of trust as significant aggravating factors.

Although the offender was a first offender with community support, mental health treatment, and a psychologist's opinion indicating extremely low risk of reoffending, those factors did not displace the need for a custodial sentence.

A 12-month term of imprisonment followed by one year of probation was imposed, together with ancillary orders.

The accused, Derek Horth, sought a review of a detention order issued by a Justice of the Peace.

Horth argued for release based on alleged material changes in circumstances, including an improved surety plan with increased financial commitment and electronic monitoring, and the public health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in custodial facilities.

He also claimed the Justice of the Peace made four errors of law during the initial bail hearing.

The Superior Court found no material changes in circumstances, noting the continued unsuitability of the proposed sureties due to their lack of oversight and understanding of the accused's criminal history.

The court also dismissed the alleged errors of law, affirming the Justice of the Peace's assessment of the Crown's strong case and the necessity of detention on tertiary grounds to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for review was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.

The three accused faced various charges relating to the importation of 29 kilograms of heroin and 600 grams of opium concealed in a shipping container of marble stone.

At the close of the Crown's case, all three accused brought motions for directed verdicts.

The court dismissed the motions brought by two of the accused, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer their knowledge and participation in the drug importation and trafficking scheme.

However, the court granted the motion for the third accused, the consignee of the shipment, finding no evidence reasonably capable of supporting an inference that he knew about the drugs, and entered not guilty verdicts on his charges.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon after stabbing his childhood friend during an altercation at his home.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the victim attacked him with a knife.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent, finding that he had a motive based on jealousy and that his after-the-fact conduct of retrieving his passport indicated guilt.

The court accepted the victim's testimony that the attack was unprovoked.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant sought to exclude drug evidence obtained by police, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police unlawfully questioned the applicant, conducted an unreasonable safety search, and delayed providing the right to counsel.

Given the flagrant nature and significant impact of these breaches, the court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, leading to the dismissal of all charges.

The accused was stopped at a RIDE program and asked to provide a breath sample into an Approved Screening Device.

After failing to provide a suitable sample and claiming he was scared, he was charged with failing to comply with a demand.

At trial, the accused argued he had a reasonable excuse due to an anxiety disorder.

The court rejected his evidence as not credible, finding he was physically able to provide a sample but chose not to out of fear of failing the test.

A finding of guilt was entered.

Garey Harris, charged with drug trafficking and firearm offences, brought an application under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained through police search and seizure.

The court found Harris had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his condominium unit but not in the common areas or in video images of another person.

The court determined there were reasonable grounds for Harris's arrest and exigent circumstances justified the initial warrantless entry to secure the unit.

However, police remaining in the unit for approximately seven hours pending the issuance of a search warrant constituted a breach of Harris's Charter right to be free from unreasonable search.

Despite this breach and material omissions in the Information to Obtain a warrant, the court found the warrant was valid as it could have been issued even with full disclosure.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework, the court concluded that the Charter breach was not egregious, no evidence was obtained as a result of the breach, and the evidence was highly reliable and vital to the serious charges.

Therefore, admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and the application to exclude the evidence was denied.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The defence challenged the validity of a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing the police affiant included misleading statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO) by describing suspected drug exchanges as observed 'hand-to-hand transactions'.

The court found the affiant's drafting errors were due to inexperience rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead.

After excising the problematic statements, the court concluded the remaining information from confidential informants and police surveillance provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The Charter challenge was dismissed and the accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with trafficking cocaine following surveillance by Halton Regional Police.

Officers observed the defendant meet with another individual in a rural area, during which the other person reached his hands into the defendant's vehicle.

Cocaine was subsequently found in the other person's vehicle and cash was found in the defendant's possession.

The defendant argued the evidence was circumstantial and that an innocent explanation existed—that the two men were lost and discussing directions.

The court found that the inference of guilt was the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence and convicted the defendant.

The accused was charged with importing a controlled substance, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to import cocaine after a package containing 3.5 kilograms of cocaine from Peru was intercepted by border services.

The police conducted a controlled delivery, tracking the package as it was handed from one co-conspirator to another, eventually arriving via taxi at the accused's apartment building.

The accused met the taxi, paid the fare, and fled when police announced their presence.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including phone records, the pattern of delivery, and the accused's post-offence conduct, the court found the accused guilty on all counts.

The three accused, Amandeep Jodha, Manjot Chadde, and Gurvir Deol, were charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following a violent brawl.

The Crown's theory relied on identifying the perpetrators and establishing a common intention to bring weapons.

The court found all three accused not guilty, concluding that the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the unreliability and internal inconsistencies of all witness testimonies, making it impossible to identify the perpetrators.

A joint application for a stay of proceedings based on s.11(b) Charter delay was dismissed as moot, though the court noted it would have been dismissed on its merits due to a combination of defence delay, inherent delay, and exceptional circumstances.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and with consuming alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration thereof in her blood exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offences were alleged to have occurred on September 18, 2014.

The Crown relied on breath samples taken outside the two-hour window for the presumption of identity, requiring expert toxicological evidence.

The defendant testified that she consumed alcohol in response to phone calls from her abusive ex-husband and that she poured alcohol on her car floor when she saw police pulling her over.

The court found the defendant's credibility seriously undermined by her false statements regarding requesting a Punjabi interpreter and her implausible account of pouring alcohol on the car floor.

The court acquitted on the over 80 charge because the Crown failed to prove the "no bolus drinking" assumption underlying the toxicologist's opinion, given evidence that the defendant was consuming large quantities of alcohol while driving.

However, the court convicted on the impaired driving charge based on poor driving, slurred speech, swaying, and stumbling observed by police officers.

Karim Baratov sought judicial interim release pending his extradition hearing to the United States for serious computer hacking offences, including conspiracy with Russian FSB officers to steal information from webmail providers.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the U.S., opposed the application on all three grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code: flight risk, risk of re-offending, and maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found that Baratov, a sophisticated hacker with significant financial resources and international connections, posed a substantial flight risk and a high likelihood of re-offending.

The proposed release plan, including electronic monitoring and parental supervision, was deemed insufficient given his skills and past conduct.

The court also concluded that releasing him would undermine public confidence in the justice system due to the gravity of the offences and the strong evidence against him.

The application for judicial interim release was denied.

The defendant, Jacqueline Simone, was charged with attempting to export cocaine, possession for the purpose of exporting, and conspiracy to export cocaine.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by Ms. Simone to the police following her arrest.

The Defence sought to exclude these statements, alleging violations of Ms. Simone's Charter rights.

The court conducted a blended *voir dire* and ultimately ruled that Ms. Simone's statements were voluntary and admissible, finding no Charter breaches.

The defendant, Jacqueline Simone, faced charges including attempting to export cocaine and conspiracy.

During the trial, the defence brought two applications: to exclude telephone records from a co-conspirator's cell phone and to prevent the testimony of an officer regarding retrieved deleted messages from the defendant's phone.

The court dismissed both applications.

The first application was dismissed as the defence failed to establish that the co-conspirator hearsay evidence lacked necessity and reliability, applying the "rare cases" exception from R. v. Mapara.

The second application was dismissed, finding the officer's testimony factual, not expert opinion, and the evidence of deleted messages was probative as post-offence conduct, outweighing any potential prejudice.

The accused was charged with procuring two women to become prostitutes and exercising control, direction, or influence over the movements of one of them for the purpose of gain.

The court found that the accused manipulated and coerced the first complainant, a vulnerable young woman with significant debt, into stripping, performing 'extras', and escorting, while taking the money she earned.

The accused was found guilty of the charges relating to the first complainant.

However, the court found the second complainant was a strong, independent woman who made her own choice to dance for money without being procured by the accused, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

Four offenders with no prior criminal records were sentenced for their roles in a sophisticated commercial cocaine trafficking operation involving 43 kilograms of cocaine.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount principles for large-scale cocaine trafficking.

The directing mind received 12 years, a fully committed participant received 11 years, a trusted courier received 10 years (less pre-trial credit), and a minor participant whose vehicle was used received 6 years.

A forfeiture order was also made for the vehicle used in the offence.

This criminal trial concerned a large-scale drug trafficking operation, 'Project Odyssey,' which led to the seizure of significant quantities of cocaine, methamphetamine, and GHB.

Six defendants were arraigned, with one passing away during the trial.

The court addressed preliminary motions regarding confidential informant privilege and a stay of proceedings based on alleged police misconduct, both of which were dismissed.

The core issues at trial involved proving possession, knowledge, and intent for trafficking and importing charges, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and the Supreme Court's guidance on circumstantial evidence from *R. v. Villaroman*.

Ultimately, four defendants were convicted of trafficking, while one was fully acquitted.

Importing charges against two defendants were dismissed due to reasonable doubt.