D. Mitchell

The accused, charged with human trafficking offences, brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter alleging that the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant for his mobile phone lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The phone was seized incident to arrest.

The reviewing judge applied the Garofoli standard and found that the ITO contained sufficient information, including the co-accused's extensive use of a mobile phone to facilitate the offences and the applicant's integral involvement, to provide reasonable grounds to believe evidence would be found on the applicant's phone.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, charged with human trafficking offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was approximately 32 months.

The central issue was whether a delay caused by defence counsel's unavailability following an adjournment necessitated by late Crown disclosure should be attributed to the defence.

The court held that the pre-Jordan principles in Godin no longer apply, and that periods where the court and Crown are ready but the defence is not must be deducted as defence delay.

After deducting defence delay, the net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (a firearm and ammunition) found in his home, alleging breaches of his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant based on confidential informant information and surveillance, dismissing the s. 9 claim.

While the court found the search warrant was validly issued, it held that the police breached s. 8 by entering and 'freezing' the applicant's residence without a warrant, as there were no exigent circumstances.

However, applying the Grant test under s. 24(2), the court concluded the evidence should not be excluded because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable.

The accused was charged with firearm possession offences and obstructing a peace officer after taking a gun from his friend during a restaurant altercation and placing it in a rented limousine.

The accused argued he possessed the gun as part of a public duty to prevent harm.

The court accepted the accused's evidence that he took the gun to prevent anyone from getting hurt and had no intention of keeping or using it.

The court found the public duty defence applied and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The plaintiff brought an action for negligence and battery against a locum chiropractor, alleging that the chiropractor performed a cervical spine adjustment in contravention of a 'No C/S ADJ' note in her chart, causing a disc herniation at C7-T1.

The court found as a fact that the defendant did not perform a cervical adjustment, but rather performed thoracic adjustments that were consistent with the plaintiff's previous treatments.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities, as the onset of neurological symptoms occurred hours later, and the disc herniation could have been caused by minor daily trauma given the plaintiff's pre-existing degenerative disc disease.

The court further found that the defendant met the standard of care and had obtained valid informed consent.

The action was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and failing to remain at the scene of an accident after deliberately using a vehicle to intimidate and cut off a cyclist during a dispute arising from a drug transaction.

The collision propelled the cyclist into a building, causing fatal head injuries.

The court considered Gladue factors, including the accused’s Indigenous background, family circumstances, addiction history, and efforts at rehabilitation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the deliberate endangerment of road users and the decision to flee the scene, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

Consecutive sentences were ordered for criminal negligence causing death and leaving the scene.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault after shoving a stranger to the ground in an unprovoked, alcohol-fuelled attack.

The victim hit his head on the curb and suffered catastrophic, life-altering brain injuries.

The Crown sought 18 months' incarceration while the defence sought a suspended sentence, emphasizing the offender's lack of prior record and lack of intent to cause such severe harm.

The court balanced the catastrophic consequences and need for denunciation against the offender's positive background and the unintended extent of the harm, imposing a sentence of 4 months' incarceration and 2 years' probation.

The accused was tried for aggravated assault arising from a late-night incident in downtown Toronto in which the victim was struck and fell, suffering catastrophic head injuries.

The victim had no recollection of the attack, and the central issue at trial was whether the accused or a companion committed the assault.

The accused testified that his friend struck the victim while he merely witnessed the event.

The court rejected the accused’s account as self‑serving and inconsistent with the surrounding evidence, including eyewitness testimony from a taxi driver who observed the assault and identified the attacker as the person wearing a red T‑shirt.

Relying particularly on that independent eyewitness evidence, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused pushed or struck the victim, causing the severe injuries.