Emily E. Marrocco

The appellant appealed his convictions for historical sexual and physical assaults against his former common-law spouse and her children.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing the credibility of the primary complainant, improperly used his criminal record, failed to resolve material inconsistencies, applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence, and misapplied the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments or application of legal principles.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible (NCR) for violent offences, appealed the Ontario Review Board's (Board) decision to maintain a detention order, seeking a conditional or absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's finding that the appellant still posed a significant threat to public safety.

However, the Court found the Board's decision to impose a detention order, rather than a conditional discharge, unreasonable because it failed to adequately explain why the appellant's risk could not be managed under a conditional discharge, particularly given the Hospital's recommendation for a conditional discharge and expert evidence regarding medication compliance and monitoring.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a rehearing.

This is a ruling on committal for three accused charged with a brazen daytime shooting in Regent Park on May 28, 2018, allegedly in retaliation for a shooting in Vanauley Walk the previous day.

The Crown alleges the accused are members of Menace Gang, a junior gang associated with the Project Originals criminal organization.

The accused are charged with numerous offences including possession and discharge of firearms, dangerous driving, and committing these offences for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The court examined party liability under sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code, the admissibility of rap music videos as evidence of criminal organization status, and the distinction between acts that have the effect of benefitting a criminal organization versus acts done for that purpose.

The accused was charged with multiple drug and firearms offences following a search of his apartment unit.

At trial, the defence challenged the validity of the search warrant and alleged violations of the accused's Charter rights.

The court upheld the validity of the search warrant based on information from two confidential sources, finding the information was compelling, credible, and reasonably corroborated.

However, the court found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel when police questioned him about hazards in the apartment after he had asserted his right to counsel.

The incriminating statement was excluded under s. 24(2).

On the substantive charges, the court found that while the circumstantial evidence could support an inference that the accused lived in the unit, there remained a reasonable and logical alternative explanation that he was merely a guest.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge and control of the contraband, and all charges were dismissed.

The defendant, Tal Singh Fermah, was convicted of possession of a restricted firearm with ammunition, possession of 111 grams of heroin for trafficking, and simple possession of 1.4 grams of heroin.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years, but credited the defendant with 7 years for time served due to the "excruciatingly difficult" and "unacceptable" conditions of his pre-trial custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

These conditions included frequent lockdowns, failure to administer prescribed medications on time, neglect of serious medical issues, and repeated unsafe bunk assignments despite a seizure disorder.

The court found the institution's conduct "shocking and appalling" and "unconscionable."

The accused were charged with offences arising from the discovery of two handguns in a downtown Toronto hotel room.

The Crown sought to admit evidence obtained through an investigative chain that included an initial street-level drug investigation, a warrantless search of a rental car, and a warrantless entry into a hotel room.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter breaches.

The court found that while there were some Charter violations, they were not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion of the evidence.

The court admitted the evidence, finding that the officers acted in good faith, the breaches were minimal, and society's interest in prosecuting firearm offences outweighed the Charter violations.

The accused was charged with possession of a restricted firearm, ammunition, and heroin for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at his apartment based on information from a confidential informer.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing the redacted Information to Obtain lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the warrant validly issued and holding that the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) regardless.

On the substantive charges, the court found the accused had knowledge and control of the lockbox containing the firearm and drugs, and convicted him of those offences.

The court also found the accused guilty of simple possession of a small amount of heroin found in the police cruiser after his arrest.

Omerjah Burke was charged with firearms offences, possession of oxycodone and cocaine for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The charges stemmed from a search warrant execution where contraband was found in a locked bedroom of an apartment leased by Burke.

Burke claimed he had sublet the room to a friend named Kevin and had no knowledge of the items.

The court assessed the credibility of witnesses and circumstantial evidence, particularly documents linking Burke to the room and inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his residence and the existence of "Kevin." The court found Burke guilty of firearms offences and simple possession of oxycodone and cocaine, but not guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking or possession of proceeds of crime, due to reasonable doubt on the latter charges.

The accused was charged with two offences: transferring a restricted handgun without authorization contrary to s. 99(1) of the Criminal Code, and failing to report the loss or theft of the handgun contrary to s. 105(1) of the Criminal Code.

A restricted Glock 17 handgun registered to the accused was found in the possession of another individual during a search warrant execution.

The accused testified that the gun was stolen from his locked safe without his knowledge.

The Crown argued the accused unlawfully transferred the gun.

The court found that the accused's evidence, while not believed, raised a reasonable possibility that the gun was stolen rather than transferred, and accordingly dismissed both counts.

The accused, Eric Coplin-Duran, was charged with multiple firearms and marijuana possession offences following a R.I.D.E. stop.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Coplin-Duran had knowledge of the two loaded firearms and marijuana found hidden in his vehicle's centre console and driver's side door.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence, rejected the defence's alternative inference that the passenger secreted the items, finding it illogical given the passenger's injured hand and the manner of concealment.

The court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused had knowledge of the items, leading to convictions on all counts.

The defendant brought a Charter section 8 application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence.

The search was conducted pursuant to a Criminal Code search warrant based on information from two confidential informants.

The defendant challenged the adequacy of the judicial summary prepared under the Garofoli step six procedure, arguing it was insufficient to permit meaningful challenge to the warrant's validity.

The defendant also challenged whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrant's issuance.

The court found the judicial summary adequate to allow the defendant to mount both facial and sub-facial challenges, and concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances, including information from two corroborating confidential sources with track records of reliability, some first-hand observations, and police corroboration through database checks and surveillance.

The application was dismissed and the evidence ruled admissible.

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a loaded handgun and other items seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The warrant was based on information from a confidential informant.

The accused sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and challenged the sufficiency of the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine the affiant, finding it would not assist in determining if the warrant could have issued.

The court held that the judicial summary provided sufficient information for the accused to make full answer and defence.

Ultimately, the court found no s. 8 breach, as the informant's tip was compelling, credible, and corroborated, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

In the alternative, the court held the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

The accused applied for judicial interim release on a bail review after previously consenting to detention on charges including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and breach of a lifetime firearms prohibition order.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties, including his mother and a former employer, with supervision and potential electronic monitoring.

The court found the Crown’s case to be strong and concluded that the proposed supervision plan contained significant gaps that created a substantial risk of reoffending.

Given the accused’s prior firearms convictions and repeated breaches of prohibition orders, detention remained necessary for public safety.

The court also found detention justified on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, trafficking, and possession for the purpose of trafficking after acting as a courier to transport half a kilogram of cocaine from Toronto to Ottawa.

The Crown relied on intercepted communications and circumstantial evidence to prove the accused's knowledge.

The court found that the accused was wilfully blind to the fact that he was transporting a controlled substance, given the suspicious circumstances, urgency, and use of guarded language.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.