Eric Rolfe

The applicant sought a de novo review of his detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, having previously consented to detention.

Facing charges including assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and robbery, and being in breach of a conditional sentence, the onus was on the applicant to justify release.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, noting the applicant's lengthy criminal record and his provision of a materially false affidavit.

Despite the proposed surety and the risks associated with COVID-19 in correctional facilities, the court found the applicant failed to persuade it that he should be released, citing his disrespect for the law and substantial likelihood of breaching conditions.

The application for release was dismissed, and the detention order was maintained.

This ruling addresses the retrospective or prospective application of jury selection amendments introduced by Bill C75, specifically concerning the elimination of peremptory challenges and the change in the challenge for cause process.

The court determined that these amendments operate prospectively, meaning the pre-Bill C75 jury selection procedures apply to the accused who elected trial by jury prior to the amendments' enactment.

The Crown charged two defendants with unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm and unlawful possession of a firearm with ammunition.

A Luger 9mm handgun with ammunition was found in a television console in a basement apartment leased by the female defendant, to which the male defendant had access.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence of occupancy, possession of keys, surveillance observations, and personal items found in the apartment to establish joint or constructive possession.

The male defendant was found guilty on all counts based on compelling circumstantial evidence of knowledge and control.

The female defendant's charges were dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding her knowledge of the firearm.

The accused brought a Garofoli motion to exclude evidence seized during a search of their residence where a Taurus 9mm handgun and over-capacity magazine were found.

The accused challenged the search warrant on the basis that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was legally deficient and breached their section 8 Charter rights.

The Crown conceded that the redacted ITO contained insufficient information to justify the warrant.

The court conducted an in-camera review of the unredacted ITO and a judicial summary prepared by the Crown.

The court found that despite some problematic inclusions by the affiant officer (including irrelevant police interactions, a factually incorrect domestic occurrence reference, and failure to disclose that charges from a 2013 arrest were withdrawn), the unredacted ITO satisfied the Debot factors for credibility, reliability, and compelling nature of the confidential informant's information.

The court exercised its residual discretion and declined to quash the warrant, finding the prejudice did not rise to the level of abuse of process.

The section 8 application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault and sexual assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault and proceeded to trial on the sexual assault charge.

The complainant testified that the accused persistently coerced her into sexual intercourse despite her repeated refusals.

The court found that the complainant was a credible witness and that her evidence established that she never consented to the sexual act.

The court rejected the defence argument that the complainant's post-intercourse conduct was inconsistent with non-consent, finding that her disappointment and anger were consistent with having been forced into unwanted sexual activity.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The defendant sought a stay of prosecution for charges of possession of child pornography, accessing child pornography, and possession of a firearm, alleging a failure by the Crown and police to disclose relevant evidence.

During pre-trial motions, it was revealed that significant information had not been disclosed to the defence, constituting a breach of the defendant's section 7 Charter rights.

The court found no bad faith but acknowledged negligent oversights.

While the Crown conceded a Charter infringement, it argued against a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, opting instead to exclude the non-disclosed evidence, allowing the trial to proceed with the remaining evidence.

The defendant was charged with four offences arising from incidents in Toronto's entertainment district on July 10-11, 2010: uttering threats to damage police vehicles, uttering threats to cause serious bodily harm to a senior police officer, assaulting a police officer with intent to resist arrest, and causing a disturbance in a public place.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of two senior police officers regarding statements allegedly made by the defendant.

The defendant denied making threatening statements and claimed he was unlawfully arrested and physically assaulted by police.

The trial judge found the defendant not guilty on all counts, determining that the Crown failed to establish the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.