Diane Condo

The accused was charged with robbery and breaching a bail curfew.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the identification evidence of the complainant, an escort who claimed to recognize the accused as a client known to her as 'Rico'.

The complainant identified the accused via Zoom 16 months after the incident.

The court found the identification evidence to be frail, noting the passage of time, the complainant's poor memory of details, and the suggestive nature of the dock identification.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The Crown brought an application for the forfeiture of a $60,000 cash bail deposit and various sums pledged by sureties after the accused breached his recognizance by continuing to traffic drugs and commit firearms offences.

Prior to the hearing, resolutions were reached regarding the sureties, resulting in $65,000 in forfeitures.

The accused subsequently died in prison.

The estate of the accused sought relief from forfeiture of the cash deposit, requesting that $30,000 be returned to support the accused's children.

The court found that the accused had shown total disregard for his bail conditions and that the estate failed to provide adequate evidence of financial need.

The court ordered the full $60,000 cash deposit forfeited.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment dismissing a former wife's application for spousal support and equalization of net family properties under the Family Law Act.

The motion judge had dismissed the application, finding that a Lebanese annulment of the marriage deprived the Ontario court of jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in law, clarifying that a "former spouse" under s. 7 of the Family Law Act is not restricted to those divorced in Canada, and foreign corollary relief proceedings do not remove the Ontario Superior Court's jurisdiction over equalization claims.

The appellant withdrew her claim for spousal support.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court for consideration of the equalization claim.

This consolidated appeal addressed the admissibility of evidence obtained through a wiretap authorization granted in 2016 for a 2009 murder investigation.

The Court of Appeal found that the authorization was improperly granted due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds, as the affidavit failed to establish a credible-based probability that interceptions would yield evidence of the long-dormant homicide or that other investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

The court emphasized that a generic investigative plan and unsupported inferences of continued association among targets after several years were insufficient.

Consequently, the interceptions constituted a serious breach of Charter s. 8 rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court upheld the exclusion of the evidence under Charter s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on privacy interests.

The appeals from conviction were allowed, and acquittals were entered, while the appeals from acquittal were dismissed.

The accused, Hassan Bdeir, brought a motion at the start of his sexual assault trial to have witnesses testify without face coverings or masks, arguing that facial expressions are crucial for credibility assessment and his right to make full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the motion, ruling that witnesses testifying in person must wear masks, citing the precautionary principle in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and balancing the accused's constitutional rights against public health and safety.

The applicant brought a motion to expedite his application for judicial review, seeking an order directing the Appeal Division of the Parole Board of Canada to render a decision forthwith regarding the legality of a residency condition imposed on his statutory release.

The applicant argued urgency because his warrant was set to expire shortly, rendering the issue moot.

The Federal Court dismissed the motion, finding no exceptional circumstances or irreparable harm to justify bypassing standard timelines, particularly as the applicant delayed in appealing the initial residency condition decision.

The appellant appealed an order granting summary judgment and dismissing her claims for equalization of net family properties and spousal support under the Family Law Act.

The motions judge had found she was not a spouse due to a foreign annulment.

The Divisional Court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as the order dismissed an equalization claim and there was no indication the amount in dispute was $50,000 or less.

The court transferred the appeal to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s. 110(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

This appeal and cross-appeal arose from a fraudulent scheme involving the sale of used vehicles.

The trial judge found the appellant garage liable for conversion of five missing vehicles and awarded damages of $40,792.

The trial judge dismissed conversion claims regarding consigned vehicles, finding the parties acquired them in good faith without notice of defects in title.

The appellants challenged the findings regarding stolen vehicles, mitigation of damages, quantum of damages, and the failure to adjudicate certain counterclaims.

The respondents cross-appealed the mercantile agent finding and the costs award.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal, with limited relief granted for a contribution and indemnity claim against one defendant.

The applicants, charged with robbery, assault, and weapons offences, brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence obtained through intercepted communications.

The court previously found that the wiretap authorization was issued without reasonable and probable grounds, violating the applicants' s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court found the state conduct to be at the more serious end of the spectrum and the impact on the applicants' privacy rights to be significant.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and ordered the intercepted communications excluded.

The applicants brought a pre-trial application challenging a wiretap authorization, alleging a breach of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The authorization was sought in the investigation of a homicide that occurred 7.5 years prior.

The court conducted a facial inquiry of the supporting affidavit and found that it failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds that the wiretap would afford evidence of the homicide.

Specifically, there was no credible evidence or reasonable inference that the targets maintained contact or would communicate about the homicide after such a significant passage of time.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that judicial notice could be taken of ongoing communication, distinguishing the facts from cases involving active criminal organizations.

The sub-facial inquiry, which examined the Project Proposal, did not undermine the affidavit's veracity regarding the primary purpose of the investigation.

Consequently, the court found that the evidence obtained through intercepted communications was obtained in violation of the applicants' s. 8 Charter rights.

The application was scheduled to continue for argument on the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The plaintiffs, corporate vehicle dealerships, sued the defendants for conversion, fraud, and conspiracy after a rogue wholesaler fraudulently sold 23 of the plaintiffs' vehicles to the defendant dealership, Sami's Garage.

The vehicles were categorized as missing/stolen, consigned, and stop-payment vehicles.

The court found that the missing vehicles were stolen, meaning the rogue wholesaler could not pass good title, rendering Sami's Garage liable in conversion for those vehicles.

However, for the consigned and stop-payment vehicles, the court held that the rogue wholesaler acted as a mercantile agent with ostensible authority.

Because Sami's Garage purchased these vehicles in good faith and without notice of the defective title, it acquired good title under the Sale of Goods Act and the Factors Act.

The plaintiffs' claims regarding the consigned and stop-payment vehicles were dismissed against Sami's Garage, though the rogue wholesaler and his associate were held liable.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence and/or obtain a stay of proceedings due to alleged breaches of Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10, including unlawful arrest, arbitrary detention, warrantless vehicle search, delay in right to counsel, unreasonable residence search, and unlawful detention of occupants.

The court dismissed all applications, finding the arrest lawful, the high-risk takedown reasonable, no breach of the right to counsel, the vehicle search lawful incident to arrest, and the residence entry and search reasonable given the circumstances and lack of sufficient evidence of unreasonable damage.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession of cannabis resin for the purpose of trafficking.

The appeal raised three main issues: the validity of the search warrants, the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis regarding the exclusion of evidence, and the finding that possession was for trafficking purposes.

The trial judge had found a reasonable apprehension of bias by the issuing justice due to an indirect familial connection, but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the search warrant was validly issued on the merits, the s. 24(2) analysis was appropriate, and the quantity and nature of materials seized supported the trafficking inference.

The appellant appealed his convictions on 11 counts of weapons offences and his sentence of eight years.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty of firing a handgun at a third party and then chasing the shooter, ultimately disposing of the weapon in a recycling bin.

The sole issue at trial was whether the pursuer was the appellant or his friend.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the burden of proof and noting that the appellant's blood was found on the recovered handgun, his clothing matched witness descriptions, and he was the only injured party.

The court also upheld the eight-year sentence, noting it was a second firearms offence committed while subject to weapons prohibition orders, and that the mandatory minimum penalty of seven years applied under s. 244(3) of the Criminal Code.

A licensed pharmacist was convicted after trial of trafficking over 5,000 fentanyl patches over a two-year period, public mischief for staging a false robbery to cover up inventory discrepancies, and fraud against his insurance company.

The offender, who owned three pharmacies, ordered fentanyl from licensed suppliers and distributed the vast majority of patches illegally through false prescriptions and to a co-conspirator.

When the discrepancy was discovered by an employee, the offender staged a robbery with the co-conspirator, reported it to police, and defrauded his insurance company of over $36,000.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 years imprisonment for trafficking, with concurrent five-year sentences for public mischief and fraud.

The accused brought a motion to change counsel to Me Diane Condo after his previous counsel could no longer represent him for a 10-week trial.

The Crown opposed the change, arguing Me Condo had a conflict of interest because she previously represented the accused's alleged co-conspirator, who might be called as a Crown witness.

The court found no disqualifying conflict of interest, noting Me Condo received no relevant confidential information from the co-conspirator, the co-conspirator consented to the representation, and the defense proposed a plan where previous counsel would cross-examine the co-conspirator if called.

The court emphasized the accused's right to counsel of choice and the significant delay that would result if new counsel had to be retained.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to stay a summary judgment motion initiated by the defendants.

The trial was scheduled for May 2018, and the summary judgment motion was scheduled for March 2018.

The plaintiffs argued the motion required leave and was inappropriate.

The court found that leave was not required because the defendants had not consented to the action being placed on a trial list.

However, the court permanently stayed the summary judgment motion, finding that it would not resolve the entire action, would duplicate efforts, and could delay the scheduled trial.

The accused renewed his section 11(b) Charter motion for unreasonable delay, arguing that the delay between conviction and sentencing violated his rights.

The court dismissed the renewed motion, noting that the Jordan framework does not apply to post-trial delay.

Furthermore, the court found the 9-month delay between conviction and sentencing was reasonable, as it was primarily caused by the preparation of pre-sentence reports and the accused's own unsuccessful Charter motions.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing his action against the Ottawa Police Services Board for malicious prosecution, negligent investigation, and Charter infringement.

The appellant had been arrested and charged with first-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and possession of explosives.

He was convicted at trial but the conviction was overturned on appeal due to misdirection and inadmissible hearsay evidence.

On retrial, the Crown's case collapsed due to evidentiary difficulties and the appellant was acquitted.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding that the committal for trial and the order for a new trial constituted sufficient judicial determinations to support reasonable and probable grounds for the prosecution, absent a fundamental flaw in the criminal proceedings.

The accused, a pharmacist charged with trafficking in Fentanyl, public mischief, fraud, and conspiracy to commit robbery, brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 11(b) rights due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 28 months and 11 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice trials.

After calculating defence delay at approximately 5.5 months, the net delay was approximately 23 months, exceeding the ceiling.

The Crown sought to justify the excess delay based on case complexity and transitional case considerations.

The court found the case was not particularly complex but accepted the transitional case exception, considering the institutional delays plaguing the Ottawa jurisdiction, the seriousness of the offences, prejudice to the accused, and the defence's lack of diligence in moving the case forward.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial as scheduled.