Gary Grill

This decision addresses a voir dire to determine the admissibility of police statements made by Marcia Gittens and Horace McCalla, who are charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm to their son.

The Crown sought to admit the statements, arguing voluntariness and constitutional compliance.

The defence contended that the statements were involuntary and obtained in violation of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found Ms. Gittens' statement inadmissible due to involuntariness, influenced by inducements, her emotional state, and police misrepresentations regarding the video recording and the duty to caution.

Additionally, her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached when psychological detention crystallized during the interview, leading to exclusion under s. 24(2).

Conversely, Mr. McCalla's statement was deemed voluntary and admissible, as the police adequately informed him of his rights and potential legal jeopardy, and he was not found to be detained.

The defendant, Marco Maric, was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The sentencing hearing addressed the appropriate sentence, considering aggravating factors such as the significant quantity of cocaine (10.5 kg destined for him, 4 kg found in his unit), his leadership role in a sophisticated operation, and motivation by greed.

Mitigating factors included his difficult childhood as a war refugee, strong family support, long work history, remorse, and significant time spent on restrictive house arrest bail (927 days).

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount objectives for cocaine trafficking, while also acknowledging the defendant's rehabilitative potential.

The Crown sought 10-12 years, and the defence sought 7-8 years.

The court imposed a sentence of nine years, reduced to seven years and eight months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and house arrest credit.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition for certain items, a 10-year prohibition for others, and forfeiture of offence-related property and proceeds of crime.

This decision addresses a blended voir dire concerning the voluntariness of statements made to police and alleged Charter violations (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)) during the investigative detention of two accused, Anderson and Rhoden, following a vehicle stop linked to a shooting.

The court found that while initial detention and some searches were lawful, the detention became arbitrary after two hours (4:46 a.m.), and certain statements by Anderson were involuntary due to police inducement or trickery.

Consequently, evidence obtained after 4:46 a.m., Anderson's confessions of his real name, his videotaped statement to Det. Cobor, and evidence from the unlawful trunk search were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Early statements and the initial false name provided by Anderson were deemed admissible.

The accused, Prabhjeet Singh, brought a motion to exclude post-incident statements made by himself and Abhijeet Nagra to a relative of the deceased and their employer.

The statements allegedly minimized their involvement by claiming the air hose was applied to the deceased's legs rather than his anus, following an incident resulting in the deceased's death.

The Crown argued the motion was untimely and, alternatively, that the evidence was probative as it demonstrated the accused's knowledge of danger and attempt to minimize responsibility.

The court declined to dismiss the motion as untimely due to the accused's liberty interests but dismissed it on its merits, finding that the circumstances (video evidence, statements made to employer and next of kin) provided independent evidence of fabrication, making the statements admissible and relevant to the issue of assault.

The accused was charged with multiple Criminal Code offences including uttering threats, assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault with a weapon, mischief, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, making child pornography, and voyeurism.

He was also charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences including trafficking cocaine, production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for trafficking, and possession of cocaine.

The trial hinged on the credibility of the complainant and a second witness.

The court found both witnesses to be unreliable, manipulative, and not credible.

The accused testified that the activities were consensual BDSM play.

The court acquitted the accused of all Criminal Code charges and found him guilty of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana (as a lesser included offence to trafficking), but not guilty of trafficking cocaine or production of marijuana.

In a trial for second-degree murder, the accused brought a pre-trial application to exclude or edit a video recording of the killing, arguing the graphic images would inflame the jury.

The Crown voluntarily edited the video to conceal the pooling of blood and the gunshot wound to the deceased's head.

The court ruled the edited video recording was admissible, finding its probative value in showing the factual circumstances of the murder substantially outweighed any potential prejudice to the accused.

The accused, charged with manslaughter alongside two co-accused, sought to bring several pre-trial applications, including a recusal motion, a jurisdictional challenge against transferring the trial out of Brampton, a section 10(b) Charter application, and an application for removal of counsel.

Due to counsel's medical issues and scheduling conflicts, the court had to set a firm timetable for the filing of materials and the hearing of these applications to ensure the scheduled trial date could be maintained.

The court ordered strict deadlines for the filing of application records and factums, scheduling the recusal application first, followed by the substantive applications.

The case involves three accused charged with manslaughter.

Due to courtroom shortages in Brampton, the trial was scheduled to be held in Kitchener.

Counsel for one of the accused suffered medical issues, leading to an adjournment.

Counsel subsequently indicated an intention to bring motions to transfer the trial back to Brampton or be removed from the record, but later attempted to unilaterally delay bringing these motions.

The case management judge rejected this delay, emphasizing the need for efficiency under the Jordan framework, and ordered strict deadlines for the defence to perfect any such applications.

The appellant appealed from convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking in crystal methamphetamine and cocaine, possession of marihuana, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Drugs and cash were found in the appellant's apartment pursuant to a search warrant obtained in relation to alleged criminal activity by the appellant's former roommate.

The appellant claimed he did not know the drugs were in his apartment and that the cash came from legitimate sources.

The Court of Appeal rejected three grounds of appeal: that the trial judge erred in finding sufficient basis for the search warrant, that she erred in assessing the appellant's credibility, and that her reasons for conviction were insufficient.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of vacating the conviction for possession of marihuana, as the trial judge lacked jurisdiction to hear that count as a summary conviction offence.

The defendant, an animal rights activist, was charged with mischief to property under section 430(1)(c) of the Criminal Code for giving water to pigs in a transport truck stopped at a traffic light in Burlington, Ontario.

The Crown alleged she gave an unknown substance that created a risk the slaughterhouse would refuse the load.

The court found the defendant gave water, not a contaminant, and that her actions did not obstruct, interrupt, or interfere with the lawful use, enjoyment, or operation of property.

The court also found no evidence of willfulness.

The charge was dismissed.

The Crown appealed an acquittal, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a police search of a hotel bedroom was not a justified safety search and in excluding the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the officers had predetermined to conduct the search before arriving, which supported the trial judge's conclusion that there was no reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.

The Court found no basis to interfere with the exclusion of evidence, as the trial judge did not find the search was conducted in good faith.

A preliminary inquiry into the first-degree murder of Rala Fredrick, who was shot execution-style on George Street in Toronto on July 6, 2014.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on eyewitness testimony from individuals at a men's shelter who were under the influence of drugs and alcohol, combined with CCTV surveillance footage.

No direct evidence linked either defendant to the shooting, no gun was recovered, and no witness identified the shooter.

The judge found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit both defendants to trial, though expressed serious reservations about the weakness of the case, particularly regarding eyewitness reliability and inconsistencies in their descriptions.

The accused was convicted of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cannabis resin following trial.

The sentencing hearing addressed four key issues: whether to impose a parole ineligibility order under section 743.6 of the Criminal Code; the constitutionality of section 719(3.1) limiting pre-sentence custody credit; the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody; and the admissibility of evidence from an intervening unrelated trial.

The court declined to impose a parole ineligibility order, found section 719(3.1) unconstitutional as applied, granted reduced credit for pre-sentence custody, and excluded evidence from the intervening trial.

The accused was sentenced to five and one-half years imprisonment with 730 days credit for 608 days of pre-sentence custody.

The applicant sought review of a detention order in a prosecution involving large-scale cocaine trafficking, firearms trafficking, and proceeds of crime, money laundering, and fraud allegations.

The court held that the applicant failed to discharge the onus under s. 520 of the Criminal Code on the primary and secondary grounds, given the strength of the case, use of aliases and false documents, international connections, prior related record, and evidence of sophisticated ongoing criminal activity.

Although the court found the tertiary ground did not independently bar release, the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge of and influence over the applicant, and the proposed GPS monitoring arrangement could not cure those deficiencies.

The bail review application was dismissed.

Following a traffic stop after surveillance at a nightclub, police found two loaded handguns hidden in a vehicle.

The court held that circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that one accused personally carried and secreted a loaded Smith & Wesson handgun under the dashboard and was guilty of the related possession, vehicle-occupant, and concealed weapon offences.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the same accused possessed the second handgun hidden under a rear floor mat, given the equal plausibility that another passenger placed it there.

The owner-driver was acquitted entirely because his exculpatory testimony raised a reasonable doubt and the Crown failed to prove knowing possession or control of either firearm.

In this drug trafficking trial arising from Project Wanipitee, the court applied the Carter test to determine whether intercepted communications could be admitted under the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that a joint enterprise existed between the accused and others to traffic cocaine in the Durham Region.

The court identified the accused on intercepted communications through circumstantial evidence including surveillance, text message patterns, and physical movements.

The court convicted the accused of trafficking cocaine on two dates and possession of cocaine for trafficking purposes.

The court acquitted on charges related to marijuana possession and possession of cocaine at a separate location due to insufficient evidence of possession and control.

The applicant sought an order under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter compelling disclosure of edited portions of an Information to Obtain used to secure a search warrant in a firearms prosecution.

The Crown had redacted the ITO to protect informer privilege and provided a summary of the edits.

The court held that challenges to the adequacy of Crown disclosure ordinarily belong to the trial judge and that only exceptional cases justify pre-trial superior court intervention under s. 24(1).

The applicant’s desire to make an informed decision about a Dawson application at the preliminary hearing did not constitute such an exceptional circumstance.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of firearm and drug offences after police found him in the backyard of a townhouse while responding to a 911 call.

The police placed him under investigative detention for trespassing and, after observing suspicious movements indicating he might be armed, conducted a safety search that revealed a loaded handgun and drugs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the safety search was unlawful and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the safety search was justified by a reasonable belief that officer safety was at stake, and upholding the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence despite minor s. 10 Charter breaches.

Youth sentencing decision following convictions for manslaughter, aggravated assault, careless use of a firearm, and possession of a firearm without a licence arising from a shooting in an apartment building lobby.

The young person fired a handgun at individuals who had just assaulted him with a baseball bat, killing one person and grazing another while they fled.

The court considered significant mitigating factors including elements of self-defence and provocation, cognitive developmental delays affecting decision-making, remorse, and substantial rehabilitative progress during lengthy pre‑trial custody.

Applying the principles of proportionality and least restrictive sanction under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, and accounting for 22 months of pre‑trial custody, the court imposed a 2.5‑year custody and supervision order with one day of custody and the balance under community supervision.

A young person was tried for second degree murder, attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, careless use of a firearm, and unlawful possession of a firearm following a lobby shooting that resulted in a death and injury.

The accused admitted firing the gun but asserted self‑defence after being struck on the head with a baseball bat during a group attack.

The court found the accused had a reasonable belief of a threat and a defensive purpose, but concluded that firing multiple shots at retreating attackers was objectively unreasonable.

The court held the Crown failed to prove the intent required for murder or attempted murder.

The accused was convicted of manslaughter, aggravated assault, careless use of a firearm, and possession of a firearm without a licence.