Elisa Mastrorillo

The court dismissed Stephen William Koritar’s Charter s. 7 application alleging excessive use of force by police during his arrest.

The decision reviews the evidence of both the applicant and four police officers, finding the officers’ testimony more credible and consistent than the applicant’s.

The court concludes that the force used was reasonable in the circumstances, given the applicant’s resistance and the officers’ safety concerns.

The court also addresses, in the alternative, the legal standards for a stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence under ss. 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter, finding neither remedy warranted.

This decision concerns the conviction of Stephen William Koritar on eight charges, including possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, assault of a police officer with intent to prevent arrest, attempt to take a weapon from a police officer, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found that Mr. Koritar had knowledge and control of the drugs found in the master bedroom and kitchen of a Toronto condominium, and rejected his evidence as not credible.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of constructive and joint possession, circumstantial evidence, and the application of the W.D. framework for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt.

The decision addresses an application by Tenzin Palden to exclude evidence of cocaine seized during his arrest, on the basis of alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court finds that while there was no breach of sections 8 or 9, and no breach of section 7 regarding body-worn cameras, there was a breach of section 10(b) due to delay in access to counsel.

However, the evidence is not excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was not sufficiently serious to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The offender, Michael Hugh, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a 3-year imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional sentence due to the offender's age, medical conditions, and low-level involvement in trafficking to support his own addiction.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the danger of fentanyl, the profit motive, the presence of a weapon, and the offence location near a shelter.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, strong family support, and severe health issues (stroke-related mobility and memory problems, lack of health coverage) that would make incarceration exceptionally difficult.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence but ultimately imposed a conditional sentence, finding it consistent with sentencing principles given the individualized circumstances and the significant impact of imprisonment on the offender's health.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Ralph George for possession of two loaded firearms and significant quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking on two separate occasions.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, public firearm possession, drug quantities indicating mid-level trafficking, a prior criminal record, and fleeing from police.

Significant mitigating factors were also weighed, such as the offender's difficult upbringing marked by trauma, abuse, systemic discrimination, negative police experiences, and sexual assaults in foster care, as well as Charter breaches during his arrest, his efforts in programming while in custody, positive rehabilitative prospects, and potential immigration consequences.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 20 years, while the defence proposed 12-14 years.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 14 years, reduced to 10.5 years after credit for pre-sentence custody, finding that a higher sentence would be "crushing" and undermine rehabilitation.

The defendants, Victoria Manna-Silva and Ralph George, brought applications under sections 24(1) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence (drugs and a firearm) and for a stay of proceedings, alleging violations of their section 8 (unreasonable search) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) Charter rights.

The court found that police lawfully entered the apartment under exigent circumstances (911 domestic violence call) and observed drugs in plain view.

However, the court found section 8 violations for police remaining in the apartment after Ms. Manna-Silva was removed and for minor unlawful searches by a supervising officer.

A section 10(b) violation was also found due to delay in facilitating Ms. Manna-Silva's access to counsel.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the breaches was low to moderate, the impact on the accused's Charter interests was not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion given the independent discoverability of evidence and lack of self-incrimination, and society had a strong interest in adjudicating the serious drug and firearm charges on their merits.

Consequently, both the applications for exclusion of evidence and a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a 7-year global sentence, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the large quantities of highly addictive drugs and the offender's prior related record while on parole.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, reduced to 4 years and 4 months after applying credits for pre-sentence custody, harsh lockdown conditions, and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a prohibited weapon, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The trial proceeded by judge alone.

A Charter motion challenging the search incident to arrest was abandoned.

The court found the accused not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime due to reasonable doubt, but guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of heroin.

The accused was also found guilty of possession of a prohibited weapon.

The court considered circumstantial evidence and the accused's testimony as a functioning addict.

The applicant, Eze Moses Ojukwu, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence (heroin found in a knapsack) under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defence argued the search was unlawful as it was not truly incidental to the arrest and reflected a systemic failure by the Toronto Police Service.

The Crown contended the search was lawful for safety and evidence discovery purposes, or alternatively, that the evidence should be admitted under s. 24(2).

The court found the search was a lawful search incident to arrest based on safety concerns, given the high-risk domestic violence context and the accused's breach of release terms.

Even if there was a s. 8 breach, the court found the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2) due to the minor nature of the breach, the moderate impact on the accused's privacy, and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges on their merits.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.