Enzo Battigaglia

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained on charges including drug trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and fleeing police.

She was arrested while on release for similar offences.

The reviewing judge found no new admissible evidence to justify a review, noting that opinions from a judicial pre-trial are privileged and not evidence.

The court also found no errors of law or inappropriate reasoning in the justice of the peace's decision to detain the applicant on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The bail review application was dismissed.

The Peel Regional Police Service applied for a stay of a disclosure order pending an application for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The disclosure order required the Crown to provide the investigative files of a police officer, who was charged with unrelated offences, to the accused as first-party disclosure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that there was a serious question to be determined, the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the appeal became moot, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The stay was granted, subject to terms regarding its expiration.

The defendants were jointly charged with trafficking in various drugs and possession of proceeds of crime after police executed a search warrant at their rural hobby farm.

Police found over $800,000 worth of drugs and $82,000 in cash buried in a drive shed, along with packaging materials and scales in the main residence.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including matching containers found in the residence and the drive shed, established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants had constructive and joint possession of the drugs and currency.

The defendants were found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The applicant sought civil forfeiture under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 of cash seized during the execution of a search warrant at a rural property associated with extensive drug activity.

Police discovered large quantities of controlled substances, trafficking paraphernalia, weapons, and significant cash bundled in a manner consistent with drug trafficking.

A claimant asserted ownership of the money, alleging it derived from a dog breeding and farm animal business and the sale of a vehicle.

The court rejected the claimant’s evidence as unsupported and internally inconsistent, noting the absence of business records and the implausibility of the explanation.

On a balance of probabilities, the court found the funds were proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and ordered forfeiture.

Sentencing following conviction for aggravated assault arising from a knife attack outside a bar after a heated altercation involving racial insults.

The accused, a first-time substantive offender, slashed the victim with a large knife approximately twenty minutes after a verbal confrontation in which the victim directed racist epithets at him.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were primary sentencing objectives for a serious violent assault with a weapon.

However, mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, significant rehabilitation prospects, and the racially provocative circumstances preceding the offence.

A custodial sentence below the penitentiary range was imposed, followed by probation with anger management counselling.

During a jury trial for first degree murder, the accused brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown’s case, arguing there was insufficient evidence of participation or of planning and deliberation.

The accused also sought exclusion of the victim’s eyeglasses, alleging police testimony regarding their discovery was fabricated and compromised trial fairness.

The court held that the Crown had led evidence capable of supporting findings of identity, causation, and the requisite mental state, including forensic evidence and BlackBerry Messenger communications indicating a planned killing.

The court concluded that a properly instructed jury could reasonably find the murder was planned and deliberate and dismissed the directed verdict motion.

The court also refused to exclude the eyeglasses, finding credibility issues regarding the officer’s testimony were matters for the jury and noting the defence had not objected when the exhibit was admitted.

The accused brought an application to stay drug trafficking charges under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of the trial was approximately 30 months.

The court found that the delay was largely attributable to the inherent time requirements of a complex case involving multiple accused, extensive disclosure, and numerous officers.

The institutional delay fell within acceptable guidelines, and the accused suffered minimal prejudice.

The application was dismissed.

During a jury trial for robbery and murder, the Crown sought to reference similarities between a prior cheque fraud scheme and the alleged murder during closing submissions.

The prior fraud evidence had previously been admitted only to establish financial motive and not as evidence of modus operandi.

Defence counsel objected, arguing that such submissions would improperly expand the permitted use of the evidence and prejudice the defence.

The court held that permitting the Crown to rely on the fraud to characterize the accused’s roles would effectively revisit the earlier evidentiary ruling and risk distracting the jury from the central issue of guilt.

The Crown was therefore prohibited from referring to similarities between the fraud and the murder in closing argument.

In a jury trial for first-degree murder, the court ruled on pre‑charge issues concerning the theories of liability that could be left with the jury.

The Crown sought to rely on constructive first‑degree murder under s. 231(5)(e) of the Criminal Code based on alleged forcible confinement, and on contracted murder under s. 231(3) arising from BBM messages suggesting a promise of a vehicle in exchange for participation in the killing.

The court held there was insufficient evidentiary foundation to leave constructive first‑degree murder to the jury because there was no evidence of unlawful confinement distinct from the killing itself.

However, the BBM messages were capable of supporting a reasonable inference of a murder-for-hire arrangement involving a vehicle as consideration.

The court therefore ruled that the contracted‑murder pathway under s. 231(3) could be left with the jury but not the constructive first‑degree theory.

During a murder trial, the Crown sought a ruling that gestures made by the deceased immediately before death constituted dying declarations.

The deceased, who had suffered catastrophic stab wounds and could not speak, pointed to his abdomen and then toward one of the accused while officers attempted to render aid.

The court considered whether such gestures could qualify as hearsay falling within the dying declaration exception.

Applying the criteria for dying declarations, the court found the circumstances permitted the inference that the deceased expected imminent death and that the gestures related to the circumstances of the homicide.

The judge concluded that the gestures could constitute assertions by conduct and therefore fall within the dying declaration exception, subject to further argument regarding admissibility.

In a first‑degree murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce evidence of prior discreditable conduct arising from Blackberry Messenger chats and related events, including possession of a stolen vehicle, a cheque‑cashing fraud, a concurrent plot to rob and kill another individual, and evidence relating to the accused’s financial misrepresentations.

The court considered the governing principles for admitting prior discreditable conduct, requiring a link to a live issue and a probative value that outweighs prejudice.

The court admitted evidence relating to a stolen vehicle, a cheque fraud shortly before the murder, efforts to obtain firearms, and chats revealing a concurrent plot to rob and kill another individual because they were intertwined with the narrative and relevant to motive, planning, deliberation, and state of mind.

However, the court excluded certain other evidence, including a photograph involving an imitation firearm, related web searches, and earlier unrelated robbery‑murder planning discussions, finding their prejudicial effect outweighed their limited probative value.

Evidence concerning the accused’s financial misrepresentations was admitted as relevant to motive.

The accused brought a Charter motion seeking exclusion under s. 24(2) of digital evidence obtained from Blackberry phones and a Blackberry Playbook after the court previously found the searches violated s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court assessed the seriousness of the Charter breach, the impact on the accused’s privacy interests, and society’s interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court admitted certain communications data, including BBM chats, SMS messages, emails, notes, and call logs, but excluded other categories of device data such as browser history, cookies, multimedia files, and related metadata.

The accused also challenged production orders issued to telecommunications and health authorities.

The court rejected those challenges, holding that sufficient grounds existed for the issuing justice and declining to excise references to chats that were also lawfully obtained from another device.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a Charter motion challenging the search of Blackberry devices and other electronic devices seized during the investigation.

The police conducted physical chip extraction and later re‑examined the resulting data using updated forensic software, which revealed deleted Blackberry Messenger communications.

The applicants argued the search warrant was overbroad and the searches were conducted unreasonably contrary to s. 8 of the Charter.

The court held that the police exceeded the limits of the warrant by conducting a sweeping search of multimedia, browser data, and other information beyond communications authorized in the Information to Obtain.

The searches of the Blackberry devices were found to violate s. 8, while other search warrants and production orders challenged by one accused were upheld.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant used to extract data from their Blackberry phones.

They argued the warrant was facially invalid because it referenced the OPP property vault as the place to be searched, contained outdated language permitting searches related to the 'suspected commission' of an offence, and imposed a time limit that allegedly expired before the forensic analysis occurred.

They also argued the warrant did not authorize data extraction and that a later re‑analysis of the data with updated software required a new warrant.

The court held that the warrant, read together with the Information to Obtain and appendix, authorized the search of the phones and their data.

The court further found the time limitation applied only to entry and seizure, not to later forensic analysis, and that the subsequent software‑based re‑analysis constituted a further analysis of lawfully seized data rather than a new search.