Fairburn

The Attorney General for Ontario and the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario (CLA) sought leave to intervene in an upcoming appeal concerning the scope of the actus reus of importing contraband.

The Attorney General sought to argue the impact of the definition on provincial prosecutions of importing firearms and child pornography.

The CLA sought to argue that extending the actus reus beyond the immediate entry point disproportionately impacts racialized communities, relying on social context evidence.

The court granted both applications for leave to intervene, finding the proposed arguments and materials relevant and non-controversial.

During a kidnapping trial, the court made three key rulings.

First, the court found an air of reality to both principal and aider modes of participation, leaving both for the jury with a Thatcher instruction.

Second, the court ruled that while the accused's wife was a compellable witness under the amended Canada Evidence Act, her text messages to the accused were inadmissible due to spousal privilege and irrelevance.

Third, the court found an air of reality to the defence of duress, specifically regarding whether the accused had a safe avenue of escape, and left the defence for the jury's consideration.

The jury ultimately returned a guilty verdict.

The accused was charged with attempting to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking, importing heroin, and resisting a peace officer after picking up a package containing a control sample of heroin from a cargo forwarding company.

The police had intercepted the original 3.3 kg shipment from Pakistan and conducted a controlled delivery.

The court found the accused guilty of attempting to possess for the purpose of trafficking based on her counter-surveillance driving pattern, which proved she knew she possessed a controlled substance.

However, she was acquitted of importing due to a lack of evidence that she knew the drugs originated outside Canada, and acquitted of resisting arrest due to a reasonable doubt about her intent to resist during a brief struggle.

The accused was found guilty of conspiracy to commit murder, assault with a weapon, and uttering a death threat after she and her son attacked their neighbour and police officers.

The Crown subsequently applied for an assessment to determine if the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR).

Based on a psychiatric report, the court found that the accused suffered from a psychotic disorder, likely schizophrenia, and experienced severe delusions at the time of the offences.

The court concluded that her mental illness rendered her incapable of knowing her actions were morally wrong.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on all counts and the matter was referred to the Review Board.

The appellant was convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol after being detained in a police cruiser for a suspected hit and run.

The trial judge found breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) of the Charter but declined to exclude the breath test results under section 24(2).

On appeal, the Summary Conviction Appeal Court found the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a proper Grant analysis.

Conducting the analysis anew, the court found the police conduct in detaining the appellant for nearly 30 minutes without providing the right to counsel was serious and significantly impacted his Charter-protected interests.

The appeal was allowed, the breath results were excluded, and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant was convicted of possessing heroin and cocaine after a police officer entered his unlocked public washroom stall without a warrant and discovered him with drugs.

The trial judge found a section 8 Charter breach but admitted the evidence under section 24(2).

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in his application of the Grant framework, specifically regarding the seriousness of the police conduct and the impact on his privacy interests.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle or unreasonable determination in the trial judge's section 24(2) analysis.

During a trial for sexual interference involving a child complainant, the accused brought an application to introduce expert opinion evidence from a cognitive psychologist regarding memory, misinformation effects, and the reliability of children's recollections.

The Crown opposed the admission.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey framework for expert evidence and concluded that the proposed evidence was unnecessary, as the frailties of memory are within the normal experience of a trier of fact.

Furthermore, the court found the expert's report improperly touched upon the complainant's credibility.

The application to admit the expert evidence was dismissed.

The accused and her son threatened their neighbour with death and threw a knife at her.

When police arrived to arrest them, a chaotic altercation ensued at the front door of their home, during which the accused struck two officers with a pot, and her son was fatally shot after stabbing an officer.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, uttering a death threat, and three counts of assault with a weapon.

The court rejected the accused's defence that the murder plot was merely a ruse to attract police attention, and found that the police were acting within their lawful authority when they attempted to arrest her son due to imminent safety concerns.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The plaintiff sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated from his position as an Industrial Safety Specialist at a nuclear facility.

The defendant employer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing there was just cause for termination because the plaintiff lied on a mandatory security clearance questionnaire about his employment history and lied about his whereabouts during the hiring process.

The court applied the contextual approach to employee dishonesty and found that the plaintiff's deliberate deception in a highly regulated national security context destroyed the employment relationship.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The applicants, charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and production of marijuana, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging a violation of their s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The anticipated delay from charge to the end of trial was over 48 months.

The Crown argued that much of the delay was attributable to the applicants' co-accused and should be counted as defence delay.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, finding that the delay of one accused cannot be automatically attributed to co-accused.

The court found that the applicants were responsible for very little delay and had repeatedly asserted their desire to move the matter forward.

The net delay significantly exceeded the 30-month ceiling for superior court trials, and the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify it.

The application was granted and the proceedings were stayed.

The elderly tenant faced eviction for unpaid rent.

Her daughter brought an emergency motion to stay the eviction and paid the outstanding amount ordered by the Landlord and Tenant Board.

Despite being served with notice of the motion, the landlord and sheriff executed the eviction.

The court granted a retroactive stay, finding the outstanding amount was paid prior to the eviction taking place, and maintained the stay for 45 days to allow the parties to resolve the ongoing rent dispute.

The applicant sought to remove his father as the estate trustee of his late mother's estate, alleging breach of trust after the father transferred the trust property into his personal name and obtained a new mortgage.

The court found that while the father placed himself in a potential conflict, his actions ultimately benefited the estate by reducing the mortgage interest rate and paying down the principal.

The court held that the welfare of the beneficiaries was not compromised and dismissed the application, ordering that an amended declaration of trust be registered on title.

The father brought a motion to hold the mother in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with prior court orders requiring the timely sale of their jointly owned New York property.

The mother brought a cross-motion to stay all future proceedings by the father until he paid outstanding costs orders.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding that the prior orders did not clearly and unequivocally require the mother to sell the property immediately, but rather permitted her to sign documents to facilitate a sale without the father's consent.

The court granted the mother's cross-motion, staying the father's future motions until he satisfied his outstanding costs obligations.

During a trial for multiple counts of kidnapping, robbery, and firearm offences related to cargo thefts, the Crown brought an application to admit similar fact evidence across counts to prove identity.

The offences were alleged to have been committed by a rotating group of individuals.

The court applied the test from Perrier, finding that the offences were strikingly similar and that there was 'some evidence' linking each accused to the specific offences with which they were charged, primarily through cell phone tower data showing symmetry of movement.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect and ruled the similar fact evidence admissible across counts.

In a family law proceeding, both parties brought motions for various forms of relief.

The applicant sought an advance on equalization, the release of RESP funds, payment of a prior costs award, and an order striking the respondent's pleadings for failure to disclose information regarding his taxi licence.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce, receive an advance on equalization, and remove the joint valuator.

The court granted the applicant a $30,000 advance on equalization, ordered the RESP funds placed in trust, and directed the respondent to pay the valuator's retainer and prior costs from his own funds.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings but restricted his ability to lead valuation evidence at trial.

The respondent's motions were dismissed.

During a complex criminal trial involving multiple kidnappings and robberies, the Crown sought to introduce PowerPoint presentations as demonstrative aids to summarize voluminous cell phone records and plot cell tower locations.

The defence objected, arguing the presentations were misleading and distorted the evidence.

The court initially excluded the proposed presentations, finding they were confusing, assumed facts in dispute, and acted as a roadmap for the Crown's case.

However, the court subsequently admitted revised presentations that focused on individual phones, accurately distilled the records without assuming disputed facts, and were accompanied by cautionary instructions to the jury.

During a trial for kidnapping and robbery, the Crown led cell tower evidence to establish the identity of the accused.

In closing addresses, defense counsel suggested there was a 40 percent error rate regarding the general rule that cell phones connect to the closest tower.

The Crown objected.

The trial judge ruled that because the witnesses did not adopt the proposition of a 40 percent error rate during cross-examination, there was no evidence to support the suggestion.

A corrective instruction was provided to the jury in the final charge.

The accused brought pre-trial Charter motions seeking to exclude evidence from two separate police interactions.

For a July 2009 traffic stop, the court found the stop was unlawful due to a lack of credible police evidence regarding the reason for the stop, resulting in an arbitrary detention.

The evidence from that stop was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to serious state conduct involving a failure to take notes.

For an August 2009 interaction where police approached a parked vehicle in a high-crime area, the court found no detention occurred, as the accused was free to leave and voluntarily provided his identification.

Consequently, there were no s. 8 or s. 10(b) breaches, and the accused's statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

In a pre-trial motion, the Crown sought to admit a police statement made by one of the co-accused.

The accused argued the statement was involuntary due to police inducements, oppression, and trickery during the interrogation.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found that the police conduct was appropriate, the accused's will was not overborne, and no shocking trickery was used.

The statement was ruled voluntary and admissible.

The offender, a 33-year-old first-time offender and mother of four, acted as the getaway driver for her boyfriend in two armed robberies at bus stops.

The principal offender used an imitation firearm and received a five-year sentence.

The court considered the offender's lesser role, her lack of a criminal record, and the potential immigration consequences of her sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration, reduced to 4 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years of probation.