G. Eliany

Raven Joseph-Soroka and Ashley Wilson were charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on police surveillance of the accused's movements and the items found in their vehicle, including fentanyl, a digital scale, numerous small baggies, and cash.

The court found that when viewed cumulatively and in light of human experience, the circumstantial evidence excluded any reasonable alternative explanations for the accused's activities, leading to convictions for both accused on both charges.

Joseph-Soroka was found to be a party to Wilson's trafficking under s. 21 of the Criminal Code.

The Defence brought an application seeking a declaration that s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, which permits warrantless searches of vehicles and occupants for unlawfully stored cannabis, violates ss. 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it is unreasonable and overbroad.

The Crown contended the provision is constitutional, citing public safety and the regulatory nature of the Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 12(3) does not infringe either section of the Charter, is reasonable, and is justified by its regulatory purpose and the exigencies of vehicle searches.

The accused was charged with five counts of robbery and five counts of disguise with intent relating to convenience store robberies in Hamilton in February 2019.

The Crown's case relied primarily on recognition evidence from family members and surveillance video.

The defence presented evidence from the accused's girlfriend and father challenging the identification.

The court found that while the Crown witnesses were sincere, their testimony was unreliable due to inconsistencies, poor quality surveillance footage, and contradictions with other evidence.

The court was not satisfied that the Crown had proven the accused's identity beyond a reasonable doubt and entered verdicts of not guilty on all ten counts.

The accused, a 16-year-old youth, was charged with assaulting a pregnant woman causing bodily harm during a family celebration.

The Crown alleged the accused punched and kicked the complainant.

The accused testified he only slapped the complainant in self-defence after she pushed and hit him.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness whose testimony was consistent with photographic evidence of her injuries.

The accused's testimony contained multiple inconsistencies and his post-offence conduct of leaving without his shoes suggested consciousness of guilt.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on pre-charge delay of approximately 15 months and 22 days.

The charges included possession of property not exceeding $5,000, mischief under $5,000, possession of break-in instruments, stealing a motor vehicle with a value not exceeding $5,000, driving while disqualified, and attempted theft of a motor vehicle.

The offences were alleged to have occurred on February 28, 2017.

DNA evidence was obtained and a suspect was identified in July 2017, but the investigating officer failed to follow up on the DNA warrant directive.

No investigative steps were taken from July 2017 to September 2018.

The court found that reasonable and probable grounds existed to lay charges in July 2017, and that the investigating officer's dereliction of duty, combined with a lack of supervisory oversight protocols, constituted a breach of the applicant's section 7 Charter rights under the residual category relating to the integrity of the judicial process.

The court granted a stay of proceedings.