Garton

The accused pleaded guilty to common assault against his former common-law partner and failing to comply with a recognizance by consuming alcohol.

The assault occurred in the victim's home while their child was present.

The accused had a prior criminal record including domestic violence and was on bail for sexual assault at the time.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the domestic context and the child's presence against the mitigating factors of the guilty plea and the accused's recognition of his alcohol abuse problem.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months custody, credited as time served, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with breaking and entering, abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference after a five-year-old child was taken from her grandparents' home in the middle of the night and assaulted in a nearby backyard.

The case was entirely circumstantial, relying heavily on DNA evidence found on the child's pyjama top and the flight path of the suspect.

The defence argued that the child's father or a neighbour committed the offences, pointing to the child's out-of-court statements implicating her father.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles, rejected the alternative suspect theories, and found that the DNA and circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine, trafficking, and possession for the purpose of trafficking after acting as a courier to transport half a kilogram of cocaine from Toronto to Ottawa.

The Crown relied on intercepted communications and circumstantial evidence to prove the accused's knowledge.

The court found that the accused was wilfully blind to the fact that he was transporting a controlled substance, given the suspicious circumstances, urgency, and use of guarded language.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following his guilty plea to sexual assault.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record, including three prior sexual assaults, and was diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder and severe substance abuse issues.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to his pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour and failure to control his sexual impulses.

However, the court concluded that a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public, imposing a determinate sentence of five years followed by a ten-year long-term supervision order.

The accused was charged with production of MDMA and possession of Methamphetamine, Ketamine, and MDMA for the purpose of trafficking in connection with a clandestine Ecstasy lab.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance of the accused at the lab, his possession of a key, and notebooks found in his home containing chemical names, CAS numbers, and logos matching pill press dies found at the lab.

The accused testified and denied knowledge of the drug operation, offering alternative explanations for his notebook entries.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found that the only rational inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs and was a party to their production.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered drugs hidden in his car seat during a roadside stop.

The accused brought a Charter motion arguing that the police lacked reasonable grounds for his detention and arrest, thereby violating his ss. 8 and 9 Charter rights.

The court found that the police had both subjective and objective reasonable grounds to detain and subsequently arrest the accused based on a confidential informant's tip and their own observations.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding the arrest and searches were lawful, and held that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was stopped for driving a vehicle with heavily tinted windows, leading the officer to smell fresh marijuana and conduct a vehicle and pat-down search that revealed a concealed knife and loaded handgun.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) and (b) rights.

The court found that the officer lacked the subjective belief required for an arrest, rendering the searches unlawful under ss. 8 and 9, and also found a s. 10(b) breach due to a delay in advising the accused of his right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the police conduct was not egregious, the evidence was highly reliable, and society's interest favoured admission.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The co-accused, MacGyver Edwards, brought a motion to remove Edward Sapiano as counsel of record for Tristan Lall due to a conflict of interest.

Mr. Sapiano had previously interviewed Mr. Edwards at a detention centre shortly after his arrest, before realizing they were co-accused in the same murder.

The court found that a solicitor-client relationship was formed during that interview, imparting a duty of loyalty and confidentiality.

Despite a prior waiver signed by Mr. Edwards, the court held that the risk of Mr. Sapiano taking an adverse position against his former client undermined public confidence in the administration of justice.

The motion was granted, and Mr. Sapiano was disqualified.