Donald Carter

This criminal trial involved three defendants charged with various offences, including break and enter and aggravated assault, stemming from an altercation with a tenant.

The court heard conflicting accounts from the Crown's witness and the defence witnesses.

Applying the rule in R. v. W.D., the judge assessed the credibility of all principal witnesses, noting inconsistencies and weaknesses in both narratives, particularly concerning 911 calls and witness actions.

Ultimately, the court found significant reasons to doubt the credibility of all parties, leading to a reasonable doubt as to the events of the altercation.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and all charges were dismissed.

This case concerns a youth charged with aggravated assault, where the sole issue at trial was the identification of the accused.

The Crown relied on a witness who identified the accused based on prior acquaintance and observations during the unprovoked attack involving multiple assailants and weapons.

The court, while finding the witness truthful, determined that the objective facts, including the use of masks and limited familiarity, did not sufficiently prove the reliability of the identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

Dwayne Counsell, an accused in a multi-accused preliminary hearing, applied under s. 715.23(3) of the Criminal Code to cease attending by videoconference and attend in person.

The court denied the application, finding jurisdiction to compel remote attendance without consent, especially given the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized public health risks associated with in-person attendance and the functionality of the virtual platform, concluding that the accused's preference for in-person attendance did not outweigh the serious health risks.

The Crown applied for an order permitting three designated undercover officers to testify remotely while wearing partial face masks during a preliminary hearing.

The Crown argued this was necessary due to the security risk posed by the ease of digital image capture in Zoom hearings, which could compromise the officers' anonymity and future undercover work in investigations involving criminal organizations.

Two defendants opposed, arguing existing protections were sufficient and that masks could hinder credibility assessment.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding the identified security risk was real and that the proposed measure balanced witness safety with the defendants' rights, noting that facial demeanor is of little value in preliminary hearings and that in-person witnesses during the pandemic often wear masks.

The defendant, Richard Jonathan Turner, was convicted of unlawful confinement, assault with a threat to use a weapon, uttering a death threat, assault, and breach of probation, arising from a violent domestic altercation.

He was acquitted of attempted murder.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence proposed 2.5 years.

The court considered aggravating factors including a long history of domestic violence, breach of court orders, and the unprovoked nature of the assault in the victim's home.

Mitigating factors were few, primarily that only the attempted murder charge was contested.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence over rehabilitation due to the defendant's lack of engagement in counselling.

A global sentence of 46 months was imposed, with 26 months credit for pre-trial custody, leaving 20 months to serve.

Ancillary orders included a no-communication order, DNA order, and a lifetime s. 109 order.

Several accused brought Garofoli applications seeking exclusion of evidence obtained through multiple Part VI wiretap authorizations in a large drug trafficking investigation.

They argued the affidavits failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds and improperly named them as known parties under s. 185(1)(e) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that one authorization related to a homicide investigation lacked sufficient grounds on the edited record and therefore violated s. 8 of the Charter; intercepted room‑probe communications from a residence were excluded under s. 24(2).

However, the court found that the principal drug trafficking wiretap authorizations were supported by reasonable grounds based on confidential informant information, surveillance, phone records, and associations among targets.

Applications to exclude evidence obtained under those authorizations were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operation of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

A police officer observed a light-coloured van being driven at excessive speed in Stouffville, Ontario.

After losing sight of the vehicle, the officer discovered a damaged Toyota Sienna van parked on Catherine Crescent with a blown tire.

The defendant was found nearby underneath a Jeep.

The Crown's case rested on establishing that the defendant was the operator of the van.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts based on circumstantial evidence including the defendant's proximity to the vehicle, his appearance matching the driver's description, his statements suggesting consciousness of guilt, and evidence that keys in his possession operated the van's key fob.

The charge of driving with excess alcohol was stayed pursuant to the rule in R. v. Kienapple.