Faisal Mirza

The court sentenced Jerome Crawford for human trafficking and related offences, considering the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim, the offender’s background, and the harsh conditions of pre-trial custody.

The sentence imposed was four years in jail, less credit for pre-trial custody, with concurrent sentences for related counts.

The decision discusses the importance of proportionality, the impact of systemic racism, and the need for individualized sentencing.

The applicant, John Culmer, brought a Charter motion challenging the lawfulness of his arrest, search incident to arrest, breaches of his right to counsel (s. 10(b)), right to silence (s. 7), and arbitrary detention (s. 9) related to overholding for a bail hearing.

The court found the arrest and search incident to arrest lawful, based on reasonable and probable grounds that the applicant was involved in cannabis exportation.

It found that Border Services Officer McLaren breached the applicant's s. 7 and s. 10 Charter rights by questioning him without proper caution and full rights to counsel, and excluded the evidence elicited from this questioning.

However, the court found no breach of the right to counsel of choice and no arbitrary detention regarding the overholding for a bail hearing, citing the public interest due to the applicant's foreign national status and serious charges.

The accused, R.E.G., was charged with assault and sexual assault against the complainant, K.R. The judge-alone trial focused on the complainant's testimony, as she was the sole witness.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including a clear motive to fabricate the complaint due to animus over perceived infidelity and relationship expectations.

Material inconsistencies in her testimony, deliberate vagueness, and lack of candour regarding post-offence contact with the accused further undermined her credibility.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

In an extradition proceeding, the applicants (Balogun and O'Connor) brought a motion for disclosure of materials related to voice identification and information from co-operating witnesses.

The court dismissed the request for disclosure of items obtained or generated by US investigators (including most voice identification materials, and information from Individual 1 and Josue Rivera) due to a lack of jurisdiction, affirming that domestic disclosure obligations do not extend to foreign jurisdictions unless an abuse of process is alleged.

However, the court granted the request for disclosure of two Canadian bank audio recordings used as baseline comparators for voice identification, finding that the applicants met the "air of reality" test for manifest unreliability of the voice identification evidence, particularly concerning opinions about "distinct Canadian" and "distinct Nigerian" accents.

The court emphasized the importance of ensuring a fair extradition hearing based on admissible and reliable evidence.

The offender, an Indigenous man and survivor of the 'Indian Day School' system, was found guilty of four counts of sexual interference against an 11-to-13-year-old child.

The court weighed the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences against the offender's profound history of trauma, abuse, and systemic racism.

A sentence of 3 years in jail was imposed, along with ancillary orders, reflecting a significant reduction from the Crown's proposed range due to Gladue factors.

The accused, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a Charter motion challenging the validity of tracking and search warrants based on information from a confidential informant.

The court found that the police affiants engaged in deliberate deception by including false information and omitting material facts in the warrant applications, subverting the prior authorization process.

The court held that this egregious misconduct constituted an abuse of process violating section 7 of the Charter, warranting a stay of proceedings.

Alternatively, the court found the arrest unlawful and the search incident to arrest unreasonable, excluding the evidence under section 24(2).

The accused, C.G., was charged with sexual assault against M.A. and G.M. The charge related to G.M. was dismissed during the trial.

The judge-alone trial proceeded on the charge concerning M.A., which allegedly occurred between 1984 and 1987.

The court found the evidence of the defence witness, D.G. (the accused's daughter and complainant M.A.'s cousin/roommate), to be credible and reliable, particularly her testimony that she did not witness the alleged assaults despite sharing a small room with M.A. during the relevant period.

This created a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal for C.G.

The applicant brought a second motion under s. 11(b) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The total delay was calculated at 30 months and 19 days, but after subtracting defence delay, the net delay was 29.5 months, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court trials.

The court found that while the defence took meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, the case did not take markedly longer than it reasonably should have, particularly given the complexities of disclosure involving a confidential informant.

The motion for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

In a judge-alone trial on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child complainant, the court acquitted.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt principles in Villaroman, the court accepted the accused's denial and, in any event, found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court identified concerns about reliability, including added trial particulars, possible coaching, motive connected to parallel family litigation, and the complainant's use of language the court found likely externally supplied.

The court also relied on the surrounding family conflict and the broader evidentiary context in concluding that reasonable doubt remained on all counts.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences following a shootout between individuals associated with two vehicles on a residential street.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, a single particle of gunshot residue (GSR) on the accused's jacket, and his possession of a key fob for one of the vehicles.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's identity as the shooter due to discrepancies in clothing, the presence of a possible third person, and the unreliability of the GSR evidence.

The court also found insufficient evidence to prove the accused had knowledge of the drugs concealed in a backpack in the vehicle's trunk.

The accused was acquitted of all charges except for one count of simple possession of cocaine, which he conceded.

The defendant, Industria Farmacéutica Andrómaco S.A. de C.V., brought a jurisdiction motion to dismiss or stay the action commenced by the plaintiff, Glycobiosciences Inc. Andrómaco argued that the Ontario Superior Court lacked jurisdiction simpliciter, or alternatively, that Ontario was forum non conveniens, or that the dispute should be resolved by arbitration in Mexico or Texas as per existing agreements.

The court found that no presumptive connecting factors to Ontario existed, and therefore, the court lacked jurisdiction.

Furthermore, even if jurisdiction were established, the court determined that Texas was the more appropriate forum due to specific forum selection clauses in the parties' agreements.

The court also noted that the Statement of Claim was improperly served.

The action against Andrómaco was stayed for lack of jurisdiction, and costs were awarded to the defendant.

The appellant, 257 5950 Ontario Ltd., appealed a decision by the Property Standards Committee regarding a compliance deadline for repairs or demolition of a dilapidated heritage barn.

The appellant sought an extension of the compliance date from December 31, 2023, to August 31, 2024, citing safety risks and complications arising from a municipal notice of intention to designate the property as cultural heritage.

The court, exercising its broad appellate powers under the Building Code Act, found that while the appellant had been dilatory, the intervening heritage designation notice rendered the Committee's deadline unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, and the compliance date was extended to August 31, 2024, with no costs awarded due to the split outcome and the appellant's prior inaction.

The appellant valet parking operator appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for the theft of the respondent's vehicle, which was stolen after an employee left it idling and unattended with the keys inside.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on negligence and agency, agreeing that the valet breached the standard of care.

However, the appeal was granted because the trial judge erred by adding a related corporate entity as a defendant on their own initiative without a motion, notice, or an opportunity for the added party to respond.

The matter was remanded for a new trial.

The accused, charged with importing cocaine, brought a pre-trial motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused intended to advance a duress defence based on being a victim of intimate partner violence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary foundation for the proposed questions was insufficient and that the questions themselves were inappropriate as they presumed contested facts.

The court held that tailored jury instructions would be the appropriate mechanism to address potential juror bias regarding intimate partner violence once the evidentiary record was established at trial.

In this family trial, the court resolved disputed equalization, support, and parenting terms after most parenting issues had been settled.

The court held that a parental $200,000 reduction of a registered mortgage was not a completed gift before marriage because the donors retained control until the mortgage discharge after marriage, and the applicant therefore failed to prove the claimed date-of-marriage deduction.

The court also found that the applicant wrongfully refused to close a matrimonial home buyout by insisting on improper family law adjustments under the agreement of purchase and sale, and ordered forfeiture of half of the $110,000 deposit to the respondent.

Recurring parental payments for childcare and legal fees were treated as income rather than loans, leading to imputation of income at $111,583 from 2019 onward.

Set-off child support and proportionate section 7 sharing were ordered, spousal support was denied, and detailed parenting terms were fixed.

The applicant, charged with firearms and drug trafficking offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to a trial within a reasonable time was infringed.

The anticipated delay was 27.5 months, which is below the 30-month ceiling for Superior Court trials established in Jordan.

The applicant argued the Crown failed to conduct a diligent prosecution by delaying severance and the preferring of a direct indictment.

The court found that while the Crown's communication and timing on certain procedural steps were problematic, the overall delay did not markedly exceed what was reasonably required for a multi-accused case.

The motion was dismissed.