E. McCooeye

The applicant, charged with multiple firearms offences, sought standing to bring a s. 8 Charter application challenging the search of a motorcycle club clubhouse where items were seized during a warrant execution.

The Crown opposed, arguing the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy as he was not an owner, tenant, or resident.

The court found that the applicant's extensive use of the property -- including regular attendance, overnight stays, maintenance, renovations, financial contributions, storage of personal belongings, and ability to regulate access as one of ten members -- established a reasonable expectation of privacy sufficient for standing, even though the property was not his primary residence.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought an application for disclosure of police notes related to a search warrant.

The Information to Obtain (ITO) relied heavily on information from confidential informants.

The affiant officer stated she reviewed the handler's notes when drafting the ITO.

The Crown refused to disclose these source notes, arguing they were irrelevant.

The court held that because the affiant expressly reviewed and relied on the handler's notes, they formed part of the investigative file and must be disclosed, subject to redactions to protect informant privilege.

The moving party brought a motion to change seeking to terminate spousal support and vacate all arrears.

The parties were married for 15 years, and the moving party had been paying support since 2002.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and determined that the maximum duration for support had been reached.

Spousal support was terminated effective October 31, 2017.

The court also ordered the moving party to make temporary monthly payments of $350 towards the outstanding arrears owed to the responding party and the Ministry, pending a final determination of the arrears.

Following a guilty verdict, the trial judge opened a letter purportedly from a juror.

An inquiry was held where the juror denied writing the letter.

The defence subsequently applied for a mistrial or a stay of proceedings based on a reasonable apprehension of bias, arguing that the juror's subsequent contact with the Crown tainted the process.

The trial judge dismissed the applications, finding that he was functus officio under the rule in R. v. Burke, which dictates that only an appellate court has jurisdiction to order a new trial for alleged juror bias requiring reconsideration of the verdict.

The judge also held that the Burke rule does not violate section 7 of the Charter and declined to continue the inquiry due to jury secrecy concerns.

During a trial for break and enter and assault, the court ruled on whether certain defences could be left with the jury.

The court permitted the third-party suspect defence for one accused, finding sufficient evidence connecting another individual to the crime.

However, the court refused to leave the defences of self-defence and duress for the co-accused, concluding there was no air of reality to the claim that he drew a knife from the victim's kitchen in response to a threat.

The Crown sought a voluntariness ruling regarding an exculpatory video interview conducted with the accused following his arrest for sexual offences against his step-son.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to drug intoxication, a public arrest, an improper strip search, and police inducements.

The court applied the confessions rule and found that, despite the accused's complaints about the arrest and search, he possessed an operating mind and was not deprived of his ability to choose whether to speak.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The children's aid society brought a motion for an interim order pending appeal to stay a lower court decision that permitted the paternal grandparents to supervise the father's access to two young children.

The father had been the subject of sexual abuse allegations involving other children, and the society argued the grandparents were uninformed and uncooperative.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay and considered the best interests of the children.

Finding serious issues to be tried on appeal, including factual errors by the motion judge, and a risk of irreparable harm given the children's young ages and the grandparents' failure to review the evidence of risk, the court granted the society's motion and ordered that access be supervised by the society pending the appeal.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and facing a potential four-year penitentiary sentence, applied for a Rowbotham order for state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid due to his WSIB pension slightly exceeding the financial cut-off.

The court found that the accused lacked the means to retain counsel and that the complexity of the case, combined with the serious potential consequences, required representation to ensure a fair trial.

The application was granted, and a conditional stay of proceedings was ordered until state funding for counsel is arranged.

In a custody dispute between a children's maternal aunt and their father following the death of the children's mother, a First Nation band sought to be added as a party or alternatively granted intervener status.

The band argued its participation was necessary to assist the court in assessing the best interests of children of First Nations heritage.

The court held that under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Family Law Rules, a non-party should only be added where their presence is necessary to determine the issues in dispute.

Because the father was a member of the First Nation and could present cultural and community evidence, the band’s participation was not necessary.

The motion to be added as a party and the alternative request for intervener or amicus status were dismissed.

The offender was sentenced following convictions on ten counts including multiple arsons, insurance fraud, identity fraud, and counselling to commit arson.

The offences involved four planned fires at residential properties and a fraudulent scheme involving a life insurance policy connected to the offender’s former spouse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender’s role as the organizer who directed another vulnerable individual to set several of the fires.

After applying the principles of proportionality, totality, and parity, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with credit for pre‑sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and restitution payable to an insurance company for property losses.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought an application under s. 276.2 of the Criminal Code seeking permission to cross-examine the complainant about prior interactions and alleged sexual activity between them.

The defence argued the evidence was relevant to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent and necessary to explain the accused’s state of mind.

The court held that certain prior interactions, including cuddling and holding, the complainant placing the accused’s hand on her breast, and the complainant sending a nude photograph, were admissible because they were relevant and their probative value outweighed the prejudicial effect under s. 276(2).

However, the accused was not permitted to cross-examine the complainant about her alleged statement that she had been raped by her ex-husband.

The application was therefore granted in part.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference and sexual assault involving a 17‑year‑old who sought spiritual healing from him.

The offender, a respected cultural leader and pipe carrier within the Ojibway community, exploited a position of trust by persuading the complainant that sexual touching was part of a healing ritual.

The court considered significant aggravating factors including the victim’s age, the abuse of authority, and a prior conviction for sexual assault.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, remorse, deteriorating health, and extensive Gladue factors detailing systemic and personal hardships experienced by the Indigenous offender.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the offender’s background, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation and ancillary orders.