Diane Magas

Tamara Lich and Christopher Barber were convicted of mischief arising from their leadership roles in the Freedom Convoy, which gridlocked Ottawa from January 29 to February 18, 2022.

Barber was additionally convicted of counselling others to disobey a Court Order.

The Crown sought unprecedented custodial sentences of seven years for Lich and eight years for Barber.

The defence sought absolute discharges or non-custodial dispositions.

The court imposed conditional sentences of 18 months for Barber (concurrent with 3 months for the counselling conviction) and 15.5 months for Lich (after crediting 74 days pre-sentence custody), with strict conditions including house arrest, curfews, and community service.

The court rejected both the Crown's punitive approach and the defence's request for discharges, finding that conditional sentences with onerous conditions could achieve denunciation and deterrence while respecting principles of proportionality and restraint.

The parties were married for seven and a half months before separating.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property, occupation rent, and reimbursement for personal items.

The court found that the property at 156 Barrette Street was not a matrimonial home, as the parties only stayed there briefly and lacked the intention to make it their family residence.

The claim for occupation rent was dismissed because the applicant was not a joint owner and did not contribute to the property's costs.

The court determined the net family property was $4,651.88, representing the increase in the respondent's investment fund.

However, given the short duration of the marriage and the applicant's minimal contributions, the court found an equal division unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

Using a mathematical approach based on the length of cohabitation, the court awarded the applicant 12.5 percent of the net family property, amounting to $581.49.

The claim for personal possessions was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Christine Decaire on a mischief charge related to the Freedom Convoy.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in applying principal and party liability and inferential reasoning from circumstantial evidence.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent engaged in overt acts of mischief or formed a common intention to block streets, distinguishing her conduct from other protest-related cases.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault, sexual touching, and gross indecency against three nephews.

The appeal raised issues of territorial jurisdiction, the application of R. v. W.(D.) principles, alleged errors in conviction for a specific charge, and infringement of linguistic rights.

The appellant also claimed ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's decisions regarding jurisdiction (applying a "real and substantial connection" test), the assessment of evidence, or the specific charge.

It also found no infringement of linguistic rights (clarifying that "transcription" in the Criminal Code refers to sound recordings, not written transcripts, during trial) and no ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appellant, Subeer Bakal, appealed his convictions for firearm offences and breaches, and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

He also sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the principles for assessing evidence, including circumstantial evidence (R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. Villaroman).

The court also denied the application to admit fresh evidence, finding it lacked cogency and was implausible.

Finally, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence but dismissed the sentence appeal, concluding that the trial judge properly considered sentencing principles, including the totality principle, time spent on bail, and the issue of anti-Black racism.

The applicant, convicted of fentanyl trafficking, sought bail pending his application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Crown opposed, arguing the application was frivolous and detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court found the proposed application for leave had low to nil chances of success, as the Court of Appeal had already thoroughly addressed the Charter issues.

The court emphasized the high public interest in enforceability, particularly given the gravity of large-scale fentanyl trafficking, which outweighed the applicant's health concerns.

The application for bail was dismissed.

The appellant, a pharmacist, was convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, fraud, and public mischief, and sentenced to 14 years' incarceration.

He appealed both his conviction and sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's Charter rulings (s. 11(b), s. 7, s. 8) or assessment of evidence, including the handling of a Vetrovec witness.

However, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence, finding that the trial judge erred by failing to sufficiently apply the principle of restraint for a first-time offender with health issues.

The sentence was reduced from 14 years to 12 years imprisonment.