Ehsan Ghebrai

The accused was charged with three counts of dangerous driving causing death after driving a dump truck through a red light and striking another vehicle.

The Crown's accident reconstruction expert initially opined that driver error was the sole cause, but conceded in cross-examination that sun glare, flashing emergency lights, and another vehicle in the accused's blind spot could have been contributing distractions.

The court found that while the actus reus was established, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent driver in the circumstances.

The charges were dismissed.

The Crown brought a voir dire application to admit a statement made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, argued the statement was involuntary due to an atmosphere of oppression and lack of an operating mind, and sought its exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights because police delayed charging him with unrelated undercover offences to protect an ongoing investigation.

The Superior Court of Justice found the statement voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the accused understood his rights and jeopardy.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no breach as the police acted in good faith under a judicially authorized investigative plan, and held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under the Grant framework.

The court considered an application by Mustafa Elawad to exclude evidence obtained during a traffic stop and subsequent search, on the basis of breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) of the Charter.

The court found that the police engaged in racial profiling, that the stop was not justified by the stated reason of obscured plates, and that the subsequent search and seizure were unlawful.

The evidence of drugs and a firearm was excluded, and Mr. Elawad was acquitted of all charges.

This endorsement addresses issues arising from a trial management conference in a criminal proceeding.

Key points included a discussion regarding the appointment of counsel for one accused, Stephen Richard Parr, who has a Legal Aid certificate but is seeking counsel on the LAO panel.

The court also directed the Crown to file its discreditable conduct application and ordered all counsel to file summaries of their intended pre-trial applications by March 29, 2024.

The judge expressed concern about the efficiency of virtual attendances and indicated a consideration for ordering future trial management conferences to be held in person.

In a pre-trial motion for a first-degree murder case, the court ruled on the admissibility of the accused's statements to police, ante-mortem statements of the deceased, and character evidence.

The court found the accused's statements were voluntary and not obtained in violation of his Charter rights.

The deceased's statement 'No, it's my brother' was admitted for state of mind but not for its truth.

The court also allowed some evidence of the deceased's prior violent acts to support the accused's self-defence claim, while permitting the Crown to lead balancing evidence of the accused's disposition for violence.

The applicant, a young Black male, was stopped at a RIDE program.

Officers smelled cannabis and observed cannabis shake on his clothing.

The applicant admitted to smoking earlier and being a "messy roller".

The officers detained the applicant and searched his vehicle under section 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, locating a loaded handgun in a closed satchel on the passenger seat.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the firearm, alleging racial profiling and violations of his rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of racial profiling.

The court held that the officers had reasonable grounds to search the vehicle and that the Cannabis Control Act authorized the search of the closed satchel.

The court also found no violations of the applicant's rights to counsel, which were suspended during the brief roadside investigation.

The Crown sought to commit three defendants for first-degree murder in the shooting death of Jordan Henry.

The incident occurred outside a New Year's Eve party following an altercation.

The court, after a preliminary inquiry, found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit two defendants (Mohamed Shokri and Zakaria Hassan Adam) for first-degree murder, and one defendant (Abdikadir Abdi) for second-degree murder.

The decision analyzed the test for committal, treatment of circumstantial evidence, distinction between inference and speculation, and the elements of planned and deliberate first-degree murder and party liability.

Jovane Jolly pleaded guilty to two counts of fentanyl trafficking.

The Crown sought an 11-year sentence, while the defence proposed 6 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl trafficked (over 6 ounces), the offender's related criminal record, his disregard for human life by continuing to traffic after an overdose death, and committing offences while on bail.

Mitigating factors included his guilty plea, social context evidence regarding systemic discrimination as a Black man, presentence custody, time on restrictive bail, and rehabilitative prospects.

The court imposed a global penitentiary term of 9 years, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation while acknowledging the social context evidence's impact on moral responsibility.

The accused was sitting in a parked car when police blocked his vehicle and detained him.

After discovering loose cannabis and an outstanding committal warrant, police delayed advising the accused of the reasons for his detention and his right to counsel for nearly 30 minutes while they investigated the warrant, deliberately misleading him to maintain his compliance.

A subsequent search of the vehicle yielded a firearm.

The court found violations of sections 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Although the search itself was lawful under the Cannabis Control Act, the court excluded the firearm under section 24(2) due to the serious, deliberate, and reckless nature of the police conduct in suspending the accused's rights.

The applicant, charged with assault with a weapon, brought a Charter s. 8 application to exclude evidence seized from his cell phone pursuant to a search warrant.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained deliberate falsehoods regarding a witness claiming the applicant filmed the assault.

The court found the officer made a careless error in attributing the statement to the wrong witness, which did not amount to bad faith but required excision of the impugned paragraphs.

Without those paragraphs, the ITO lacked grounds to authorize a search for photographs and videos.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the photograph and video evidence, finding the police's failure to provide accurate information undermined the prior authorization process.

The applicant, charged with several offences including sexual assault, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 41 months.

The court deducted three months for defence delay due to counsel's unavailability.

The court also deducted three months as a discrete exceptional circumstance due to the unavailability of the trial judge who was seized with a first-degree murder trial, and nine months due to the COVID-19 pandemic suspending jury trials.

The net delay of 26 months fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found the applicant did not demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, and dismissed the application.

The accused, charged with attempted murder and firearms offences, applied for a bail review following a detention order.

He argued a material change in circumstances due to a COVID-19 outbreak at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court found the outbreak constituted a material change, warranting a hearing de novo.

Although the Crown's case was strong and the offences serious, the court concluded the accused met his onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused was released on strict house arrest with GPS monitoring and three sureties.

T.L. brought a bail review application after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds following a shooting incident.

The initial bail hearing before a Justice of the Peace was flawed due to a misapprehension of evidence regarding a proposed surety.

The Superior Court conducted a *de novo* hearing, considering a new supervision plan involving house arrest with grandparents as sureties, electronic monitoring, and the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the accused satisfied the onus on both secondary and tertiary grounds, emphasizing the strength of the supervision plan and the elevated risks of detention during the pandemic.

T.L. was released on strict conditions.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown objected to the defence counsel's reference to 'blind couriers' in their closing address, arguing there was no evidence of their existence.

The trial judge declined to instruct the jury to ignore the remark, finding it was a permissible submission that a person could import a substance without knowledge.

The judge noted that in a circumstantial case, inferences consistent with innocence do not require proven facts, and the agreed statement of facts already implied the existence of blind couriers.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit lay opinion evidence from a border services officer that the accused's empty small suitcase felt abnormally or unusually heavy.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer lacked the necessary experiential capacity to form the opinion due to his inexperience.

Alternatively, the court held that the evidence's prejudicial effect outweighed its limited probative value, as the jury might unreasonably rely on it to infer the accused's knowledge of the cocaine.

Patricia Morgan was charged with importing cocaine.

A voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of statements she made to Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) and Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) officers.

The court excluded most statements made to CBSA officers due to unreliable recording and lack of context, but admitted the audio/video recorded statement made to an RCMP officer, finding it voluntary and not induced by promises of release or passport return.

The accused was charged with human trafficking, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and possession of stolen property arising from his involvement in a sex trafficking operation in York Region.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a former university student who entered the sex trade.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including numerous internal contradictions, evasive demeanor, and inconsistencies between her trial testimony and her police statement.

The accused did not testify but made a voluntary statement to police.

The court convicted the accused on one count of possession of stolen property (the complainant's cellphone) but acquitted on all other counts, finding the Crown had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

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 accused was charged with sexual assault upon a young man on January 1, 2014.

The complainant alleged that while intoxicated and under the influence of drugs at a New Year's Eve party, the accused performed fellatio upon him while he lay on a futon in the living room.

The Crown relied on viva voce evidence from the complainant and DNA evidence found on the complainant's underwear.

The defence presented the accused's testimony denying the assault and evidence from the accused's daughter regarding the events of that evening.

The court found that the complainant's evidence was tainted by his extensive drug use that evening and by embellishments added to his initial police statement.

The DNA evidence was found to be inconclusive due to the possibility of secondary transfer from blankets and furniture in the accused's home.

The court applied the proper burden of proof and the W.D. framework, ultimately finding reasonable doubt and acquitting the accused.

The accused were found guilty by a jury of offences related to the importation of approximately one kilogram of heroin from Thailand.

Prior to sentencing, one of the accused applied for an inquiry into a juror who had sent an email to Crown counsel after the verdict expressing admiration.

The court dismissed the application, finding no evidence of pre-verdict communication or reasonable apprehension of bias.

On sentencing, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for heroin importation.

Igbinoba, who acted as a sophisticated conduit, was sentenced to 11 years.

Godwin, who was the intended recipient and more senior participant, was sentenced to 12 years.

Both received credit for pre-sentence custody.