Erin Pancer

The court found Chi Do guilty of three counts of unauthorized transfer of a firearm, twelve counts of possession of a firearm for the purpose of trafficking, and one count of public mischief.

The case turned on the implausibility and inconsistencies in Ms. Do’s account of thefts, her financial circumstances, and the circumstantial evidence that firearms registered to her were found at a crime scene before she reported them stolen.

The court rejected her evidence and concluded that she intentionally transferred the firearms and fabricated the theft to mislead police.

The decision finds Samir Abdelgadir guilty of kidnapping S.J., a 14-year-old abducted outside his home in Toronto.

The court details the planning and execution of the kidnapping, including the use of multiple vehicles, the roles of various associates, and the subsequent burning of the getaway vehicle.

The court analyzes the credibility of key witnesses, the circumstantial evidence, and the legal principles of party liability and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The judge concludes that Abdelgadir, while not the person who physically abducted S.J., knowingly participated as the driver of a support vehicle and was part of the coordinated plan.

The decision addresses a constitutional challenge to section 16(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) regarding the search of digital devices at the border.

The court finds that the provision is unconstitutional as it permits searches of digital devices without any threshold, and declares it null and void as against the applicant, Kerwin Sonny.

However, the court declines to exclude the evidence obtained from the search, applying the Grant analysis and finding that the state conduct was not serious, the impact on the applicant was substantial, but society’s interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

The decision also clarifies the scope of standing for Charter challenges and the limits of remedies for third-party Charter violations.

Jermaine Watson was sentenced following his conviction by a jury for kidnapping.

The court detailed the circumstances of the sophisticated, meticulously planned offence, where Watson acted as a principal lieutenant in the abduction and prolonged, inhumane confinement of the victim for ransom.

The decision considered aggravating factors such as the home invasion, high degree of planning, Watson's central role and greed, and the use of restraints.

Mitigating factors were minimal, though Watson's severe and deteriorating health was considered as a collateral consequence impacting the harshness of incarceration.

The court applied sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality, and granted pre-sentence custody credit.

Watson was sentenced to 15 years, less 4 years and 46 days of pre-sentence credit.

Delroy Desmond sought a stay of charges (firearm trafficking, possession) under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 40 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court.

The court found that while there were periods of defence unavailability, the primary cause of the delay pushing the case over the limit was the Crown's inadvertent disclosure of an unredacted Information to Obtain (ITO) revealing a confidential source.

This necessitated defence counsel's withdrawal and a new trial date.

The court ruled this was not an exceptional circumstance excusing the Crown, as it was within Crown control and avoidable.

Consequently, the s. 11(b) right was violated, and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

Karson Benjamin, a youthful first offender, pleaded guilty to numerous serious offences including trafficking 27 firearms, 12 overcapacity magazines, 2 selector switches, over half a kilogram of fentanyl, and cocaine.

He was also found with a loaded handgun and proceeds of crime upon arrest.

The Crown sought a 15-year global sentence, while the defence argued for less than 10 years.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the nature and quantity of drugs and firearms, the combination of guns and drugs, and Benjamin's integral role, attenuated by his intellectual limitations.

Mitigating factors included his youth, lack of criminal record, difficult background, early guilty pleas, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

Applying principles of proportionality, parity, deterrence, denunciation, protection of the public, rehabilitation, and restraint, the court imposed a global sentence of 13 years, with specific counts running concurrently or consecutively, and credited 1458 days for pre-sentence custody.

This criminal trial addressed whether four adapted flare pen launchers and associated ammunition found in the defendant's possession constituted "firearms" under s. 2 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence presented expert testimony regarding the devices' capability to cause serious bodily injury or death and whether they qualified as "barrelled weapons." The court, preferring the defence expert's more experienced opinion, found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the devices were capable of causing serious bodily injury or death, primarily due to the absence of velocity testing and physical indicators of significant energy loss during firing.

Consequently, the devices were not classified as firearms, and the defendant was acquitted of the firearm-related charges.

Jevaughn Myers pleaded guilty to kidnapping and administering a stupefying drug.

The victim, an international student, was kidnapped for ransom and held for 13 days.

The Crown sought 16 years, while the defence proposed 8 years.

The court considered aggravating factors (victim impact, Myers' central role) and mitigating factors (guilty plea, first offender, mental health, family support, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions).

Applying sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and totality, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, comprising 9 years for kidnapping and 1 year consecutive for administering a substance, after accounting for pre-sentence custody.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

Kristopher Matthews pleaded guilty to kidnapping and administering a stupefying drug.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 23-28 years and a s. 743.6 order for delayed parole eligibility.

Defence sought 10-13 years global and opposed the s. 743.6 order.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years (13 years for kidnapping, 2 years consecutive for administering the drug), giving credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court denied the s. 743.6 order, finding that the danger presented by the offender did not warrant such an exceptional measure.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of kidnapping after playing a minimal role in the confinement of an international student for ransom.

The Crown sought 10 to 12 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's minimal participation, her status as a first offender, her history of trauma, and her diagnoses including Borderline Personality Disorder.

Emphasizing proportionality and rehabilitation, the court imposed a 22-month conditional sentence followed by three years of probation.

The offender was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and overcoming resistance after orchestrating a sophisticated plot to abduct a foreign university student for ransom.

The victim was taken from his home, drugged, bound, and held captive for 13 days before being rescued by police.

The court sentenced the offender, who acted as the mastermind, to 20 years imprisonment for kidnapping and a concurrent 3 years for overcoming resistance, noting the extreme gravity of the offence and the paramount need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court declined to impose consecutive sentences based on the totality principle and declined to restrict parole eligibility.

The defendants brought applications for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay of up to 44 months from arrest to the anticipated completion of their five-week trial.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the delay, while exceeding the presumptive 30-month Jordan ceiling, was justified by exceptional circumstances.

These circumstances included the particular complexity of the multi-accused kidnapping case, which involved extensive investigation, disclosure, and coordination of multiple counsel, and the systemic disruptions caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, which profoundly impacted court operations and created significant backlogs.

The court concluded that the Crown and the justice system took all reasonable steps to mitigate delay, and the time taken would not violate the applicants' constitutional right to a trial within a reasonable time.

Daniel Dubajic, a first offender, was convicted on 73 counts related to possessing colossal amounts of drugs (106 kg cocaine, 5 kg fentanyl, 30 kg crystal methamphetamine, 4 kg MDMA) for trafficking and numerous firearms (57 handguns, 8 long guns, 15,000 rounds of ammunition) for transfer.

The Crown sought a 25-year sentence, while the defence proposed 15 years.

The court imposed an 18-year sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, but also considering the law of diminishing returns and the offender's rehabilitative potential as a first offender, finding his role was not at the top of the trafficking hierarchy.

After applying 3 years and 1 month of credit for pre-sentence custody (including Summers and Duncan credits), the remaining sentence to be served is 13 years and 10 months.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion seeking the exclusion of evidence (drugs and firearms) seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, alleging violations of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient evidence to ground a reasonable belief for the search, and that police violated his right to counsel by delaying access, failing to hold off on questioning, and delaying notification of additional charges.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the ITO contained compelling, credible, and corroborated information from confidential informants.

The court also found no section 10(b) breaches, concluding that the delay in accessing counsel was reasonable to ensure privacy, the questioning was justified by officer safety, and the delay in notifying the applicant of new charges did not impact his Charter-protected interests.

The accused was charged with firearm and drug offences after police executed a search warrant at his residence targeting another individual.

The accused brought pre-trial Charter applications alleging violations of his rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The Crown sought to prove the voluntariness of the accused's statements and relied on the Garofoli step 6 procedure to uphold the search warrant based on confidential informant information.

The court found the search warrant was constitutionally valid and dismissed the section 9 claim.

However, the court found section 10(b) violations because police compelled the accused to open a safe without re-advising him of his right to counsel, and delayed implementing his right to counsel at the police station.

Despite these breaches, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding the breaches were not serious and had minimal impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests.

The accused's statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

Rima Mansour, a 51-year-old woman with no criminal record, sought a 90-day detention review after being detained on tertiary grounds for serious firearms importation and trafficking charges.

The court granted bail, finding that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

Despite the formidable Crown case and gravity of the offences, the applicant's vulnerability due to pre-existing health conditions, the risks of infection in a correctional facility, and the likely delay in trial proceedings outweighed the public interest in continued detention.

The proposed strict surety release plan was deemed sufficient to address secondary ground concerns.

The accused, Andrew Bond, was found guilty of possession of cocaine for trafficking and illegal possession of a loaded semi-automatic handgun.

This judgment addresses three Charter applications made by the defence during the trial: (1) exclusion of evidence obtained via search warrants based on confidential informants, (2) exclusion of evidence obtained through warrantless cellphone "pinging," and (3) a breach of the right to counsel due to delayed access.

The court upheld the search warrants after a Garofoli analysis, found that the "pinging" was justified by exigent circumstances (or that the evidence would not be excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter), and determined that the delay in access to counsel did not constitute an infringement or cause actual prejudice.

All defence applications to exclude evidence were denied.

The defendant, Dale Lapps, brought an application to resile from an admission made by his counsel regarding the admissibility of his trucking logs in his third trial for importing and possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the admission was binding under section 655 of the Criminal Code and professional conduct rules.

The court found that an application was necessary to withdraw an admission and that such withdrawal is only permitted in narrow circumstances, such as mistake or misunderstanding, which were not demonstrated by the applicant.

The application was dismissed, and the admission stood.

The accused, charged with firearms offences related to importing a prohibited device via the 'dark web', brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 37 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

However, the court deducted 7.5 months of delay caused by defence counsel's unavailability following a conditional adjournment granted due to late-breaking electronic evidence.

The court found the net delay fell below the ceiling and, alternatively, that the case's technological complexity and transitional considerations justified the delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with 14 counts arising from a two-month period of criminal conduct directed at his former intimate partner and her three children, including attempted murder, uttering death threats, criminal harassment, and breach of probation.

The defendant pleaded guilty to nine counts and was tried on the remaining five.

He was acquitted of three counts of attempted murder but convicted of attempted possession of a prohibited firearm.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application under section 753 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation based on a pattern of repetitive criminal harassment involving intimate partners spanning approximately 25 years across two countries.

The court imposed a four-year sentence for criminal harassment followed by a maximum ten-year long-term supervision order, finding that this lesser measure would adequately protect the public, rather than imposing an indeterminate sentence.