Dunnet

The accused was found guilty of firearm, ammunition, and drug charges, as well as breaching court orders, following a high-risk police takedown.

The accused was in possession of a loaded restricted firearm while evading police on an outstanding attempted murder warrant and while subject to weapons prohibitions.

The court sentenced the accused to a global term of four years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for illegal handgun possession.

The accused was arrested following a high-risk police takedown while driving a vehicle.

A search of the accused yielded drugs and ammunition, and a subsequent search of the vehicle's trunk revealed a loaded handgun alongside the accused's personal belongings.

The defence argued that police planted the personal items in the trunk to link the accused to the firearm.

The court rejected the defence's evidence, applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, and found the accused guilty of all 16 firearms, drugs, and breach of probation charges.

The applicant, wanted for attempted murder, was arrested during a high-risk police takedown.

During the arrest, an officer broke the driver's side window with a shotgun, accidentally striking the applicant's head and causing lacerations.

The applicant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging excessive force in violation of his ss. 7 and 12 rights, and sought a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding the officer's actions were objectively reasonable and proportionate given the applicant's non-compliance and the officer's belief that the applicant was reaching for a firearm.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of possession of heroin, cocaine, and crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The offences occurred when police executed a search warrant at an apartment being used as a commercial drug operation, and the accused was observed throwing drugs from the balcony.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed three to three and a half years.

The court considered the accused's lack of a criminal record, family support, and remorse as mitigating factors, but emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the significant quantities of highly addictive drugs.

The accused was sentenced to 3.5 years in custody, with credit for one year of pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with offering to transfer a firearm and offering to traffic in cocaine based on intercepted telephone calls and text messages.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony on coded language to argue the accused made genuine offers.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the jurisdictional averment that the offences occurred in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held the intercepted communications only showed the accused acting as a conduit for information, not making a genuine offer to transfer a firearm or sell cocaine.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown appealed the respondent police officer's acquittal on two counts of sexual assault.

At trial, the Crown relied on similar fact evidence from two complainants who alleged the respondent sexually assaulted them in his marked police vehicle after offering them rides home.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding the complainants' evidence unreliable and concluding the similar fact evidence could not assist.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by adopting a siloed approach to the similar fact evidence, failing to consider the improbability of coincidence, and misapprehending the Crown's reliance on extrinsic similar acts.

A new trial was ordered.

The accused was found guilty of fraud over $5,000, false pretences, and possession of property obtained by crime after depositing over $141,000 in fraudulent cheques into a commercial bank account.

The court found the accused acted with wilful blindness and dissipated the funds rapidly.

After weighing mitigating factors, including the accused's lack of a prior record, against aggravating factors such as the sophistication of the scheme and the amount of loss, the court sentenced the accused to 15 months' imprisonment, followed by two years of probation, and issued a DNA order.

The accused was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following an altercation outside a bar where he slashed the victim's hand with a machete.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought eighteen months.

The court sentenced the accused to two years less a day in custody, minus credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the use of weapons.

The accused, charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation outside a bar, brought an application to have the defence of self-defence put to the jury.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it lacked an evidential foundation.

The trial judge reviewed the testimony and surveillance video, which showed the accused chasing the victims and attacking them with a machete after the initial threat had subsided.

The court found that even if the accused had a subjective belief and defensive purpose, his responsive acts were not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The application was dismissed as there was no air of reality to the defence.

The Crown applied for a bail review of a release order for the respondent, who was charged with trafficking significant quantities of cocaine and fentanyl.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace failed to properly consider the tertiary ground for detention under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding that the Justice of the Peace failed to explain why detention was not required given the extremely strong Crown case, the gravity of the offences, and the public safety risks associated with fentanyl.

The application was allowed, the release order was vacated, and the respondent was ordered detained in custody.

The appellant, an anti-abortion activist, appealed her convictions for mischief and breach of probation arising from her attendance at an abortion clinic.

She argued that a foetus is a human being and sought to challenge the constitutionality of section 223 of the Criminal Code, asserting defences of defence of others, necessity, and mistake of fact.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's decision to decline a full evidentiary hearing on the biological status of a foetus, as binding appellate jurisprudence establishes that a foetus does not possess legal personhood or Charter rights.

The court also affirmed that the appellant's proposed defences were unavailable in law and that her probation conditions were reasonable.

The applicant, charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence seized during a search of his person and vehicle.

He alleged that police fabricated a narrative to justify the search after detaining him pending a search warrant for his residence.

The court rejected the applicant's version of events, finding the police officers credible.

The court held that the search of the applicant's pocket and subsequent search of his vehicle were valid searches incident to arrest, and dismissed the application to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The applicant sought to exclude evidence of drugs found in his bedroom, arguing his s. 8 Charter rights were violated.

Police responded to a 911 call about a domestic assault and forced entry into the applicant's locked bedroom out of concern for the safety of anyone inside.

Inside, they found a dead dog and drugs in plain view.

The court held the entry was a justifiable use of police powers to protect life and safety, and the search was lawful.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicants, who were sought for extradition to the United States for telemarketing fraud, sought to adduce a cell phone video during their committal hearing.

They alleged the video showed a police officer intimidating them into relinquishing seized property and discouraging them from fighting extradition.

The court viewed the video and found it did not support the applicants' allegations of coercion.

The court concluded the video was not relevant to the committal hearing and dismissed the application to adduce it.

The Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of the United States, sought an order committing the respondents for extradition to face charges of fraud.

The respondents allegedly operated a telemarketing secret shopper scheme that defrauded victims of approximately $1.5 million using counterfeit cheques.

The respondents challenged the search warrant that yielded evidence against them.

The court dismissed the search warrant challenge and found sufficient evidence on the essential elements of fraud to justify committal.

The respondents were ordered committed into custody to await surrender.

The accused was charged with two counts of robbery involving two separate taxi drivers on consecutive nights.

In both incidents, two men entered the taxi, directed the driver to a location, and then robbed the driver using a weapon while demanding cash, cell phones, and keys.

The Crown relied on the consistent testimony of the taxi drivers, onboard CCTV camera images, and a palm print found on one of the vehicles.

The court found the evidence of identity and participation compelling, rejecting the defence's arguments regarding the reliability of the CCTV images and the victims' observations.

The accused was found guilty as a party to both robberies.

The accused was charged with robbery, assault causing bodily harm, and several firearms offences after attacking a drug dealer and stealing a bag of marijuana.

The accused pleaded guilty to the robbery and assault but contested the firearms charges, claiming he found the gun inside the stolen bag and did not bring it to the robbery.

Undercover police officers witnessed the robbery and testified that the accused used a handgun to pistol-whip the victim.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, applying the W.(D.) framework, and accepted the officers' evidence.

The court also found that although the seized handgun had a defective firing pin, it met the definition of a firearm because it could be readily adapted for use within a reasonable time.

The accused was found guilty of the firearms offences.

The applicant, charged with drug-related offences and possession of proceeds of crime, applied under ss. 462.34 and 462.341 of the Criminal Code for the release of $300,000 in seized funds to pay his legal expenses.

The court found that while the applicant had a possessory interest in the funds, he failed to prove he had no other means to pay his legal expenses.

Specifically, he failed to account for remaining bank balances, lines of credit, potential family assistance, and failed to apply for Legal Aid.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The applicant, charged with break and enter and other offences, sought a stay of proceedings or a reduction in sentence under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest in violation of ss. 7 and 12.

The applicant fled the scene, ran through fences and trees, and actively resisted arrest when tackled.

The court found that the police officers' use of pepper spray, distractionary strikes, and baton strikes was a proportionate, necessary, and reasonable response to the applicant's resistance and potential threat.

The application was dismissed as no Charter breach occurred.

The accused, charged with armed robbery, challenged the admissibility of his statements to police, alleging violations of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel and arguing the statements were involuntary.

The accused made an utterance before speaking to duty counsel and later provided a written statement off-camera after expressing discomfort with the video recording.

The Superior Court of Justice found no s. 10(b) breach, as the police provided a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel and the utterance was spontaneous.

The court also held the statements were voluntary, finding no oppressive conduct or improper inducements, and concluded the written procedure was a sufficient substitute for a video recording.

The statements were ruled admissible.