George L. Orsini

The applicant was charged with possessing psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

He filed a Notice of Constitutional Question challenging the constitutionality of section 5 of the CDSA as it relates to psilocybin, alleging violations of section 2(b) (freedom of thought) and section 7 (liberty and security of the person) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant argued that the prohibition on trafficking infringes the rights of others to access psilocybin for its thought-related benefits.

The court found that section 5(2) of the CDSA does not infringe either section 2(b) or section 7 of the Charter.

The court rejected the applicant's broad interpretation of freedom of thought and found that psilocybin, as an unpredictable and scientifically nascent substance, does not constitute a protected tool of thought under the Charter.

Robert Cada, an Indigenous person, pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought an 8-year custodial sentence, while the defence argued for 4 years based on the parity principle with a non-Indigenous co-accused and factors related to Mr. Cada's Indigenous heritage.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of fentanyl and Mr. Cada's significant criminal record, and mitigating factors, such as his guilty plea and the impact of intergenerational trauma as outlined in his Gladue Report.

The court sentenced Mr. Cada to 7 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a forfeiture order.

This is a sentencing decision for William Bannister, who pleaded guilty to careless driving causing the death of a 7-year-old child.

The accident occurred when Bannister made a left turn without due care, colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the defendant's significant carelessness, and his positive character, age, and genuine remorse.

Reviewing similar cases, the court determined that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, imposing the maximum fine, probation, and driving suspension, but no jail time, distinguishing the moral blameworthiness from dangerous driving.

Paul Tranter, a Staff Sergeant with the Waterloo Police Service, was charged with assault causing bodily harm to Jamie McFadyen during a booking process.

The defense argued the force used was justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code to prevent injury to another officer.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used was objectively unnecessary, unreasonable, or disproportionate, considering the volatile circumstances and the perceived threat to the officer.

Tranter was found not guilty.

Mason Ireland pleaded guilty to robbery.

The court considered sentencing principles, Gladue factors due to his Indigenous heritage, enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody during COVID-19, credit for stringent bail conditions, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture for the unrecovered stolen jewelry.

The court imposed a 4.5-year custodial sentence, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, and a fine of $162,500 in lieu of forfeiture.

Jamie Gibson applied to strike his guilty plea to one count of possessing child pornography, arguing it was not informed or voluntary, made on the spur of the moment, and under pressure from former counsel.

The court found his evidence inconsistent and untruthful regarding the voluntariness and timing of the plea.

The court accepted the evidence of his former counsel, Ms. Bracken, and found that the plea was valid, voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, meeting the requirements of section 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

The application to strike the guilty plea was dismissed.

Daniella Leis pleaded guilty to four counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm following a collision that severed a gas line, leading to a massive explosion in a residential area and serious injuries to four first responders.

The court considered aggravating factors, including high blood alcohol concentration and dangerous driving, and mitigating factors, such as her guilty plea, lack of prior record, and Indigenous background (Gladue factors).

The judge balanced the need for denunciation and general deterrence with the offender's personal circumstances and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration conditions.

A three-year penitentiary sentence was imposed, along with a three-year driving prohibition.

The accused, an off-duty police officer, was charged with sexual assault after allegedly brushing his fingers against the complainant's inner thigh in a crowded beer tent.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, as no one witnessed the touching.

The court found that while the touching occurred by the accused's hand, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether it was deliberate or accidental.

Evidence of the accused's significant intoxication, unsteady gait, and uncoordinated movements supported a reasonable inference that the brief touching was accidental.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused, charged with possessing child pornography, brought an application to exclude a videotaped statement given to police, alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The accused argued he had invoked his right to counsel during the interview and the police failed to facilitate contact.

The court found that the accused's statements were ambiguous and did not amount to an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel.

Furthermore, the accused was not reasonably diligent in exercising his right.

The application was dismissed and the statement was ruled admissible.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking after police found him with 41 grams of a heroin, fentanyl, and carfentanil mixture.

The accused, a heroin addict, admitted to trafficking to support his addiction and was aware the heroin could be cut with lethal substances.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding the accused's wilful blindness to the presence of fentanyl and carfentanil to be a significant aggravating factor.

The accused was sentenced to 7 years in custody, less pre-sentence credit.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death to two individuals (a mother and her five-year-old daughter), impaired driving causing bodily harm to a six-year-old child, dangerous driving causing death to both victims, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and possession of cannabis resin.

A head-on collision occurred on Highway 401 when the defendant's truck drifted across the median into oncoming traffic while travelling at 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The defendant had a blood-alcohol concentration between 60-96 mg per 100 mL of blood at the time of the collision.

The court imposed a joint submission of 8 years imprisonment, finding it appropriate given the aggravating circumstances including the defendant's extensive driving record (22 prior speeding convictions), excessive speed, aggressive driving behaviour, and the devastating impact on the victims' family.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the allowable limit.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath readings on the basis that the arresting officer violated his Charter rights under section 8 by making an Approved Screen Device (ASD) demand without proper consideration of residual mouth-alcohol.

The officer had incorrectly believed a 10-minute wait was required rather than 15 minutes.

The court found the officer's reliance on the ASD fail result was objectively reasonable given the officer had no actual evidence of when the accused last consumed alcohol, and the mere possibility of recent consumption did not render the demand unreasonable.

The court convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration in excess of the allowable limit.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath readings on Charter grounds, arguing that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds for the Approved Screening Device demand and Intoxilyzer demand, and that there was a six-minute delay in advising the accused of rights to counsel.

The court found no section 8 Charter violation regarding the breath demands, but found a breach of section 10(b) regarding the delay in providing rights to counsel.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court admitted the breath readings and found the accused guilty.

The applicant brought a motion under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence of accessing and possessing child pornography obtained pursuant to a search warrant.

The applicant challenged the warrant on grounds that it was based on misleading and unfounded information in the Information to Obtain.

The court found that the affiant made serious misstatements regarding the frequency and location of access to the PlayPen website, claiming multiple accesses from the applicant's residence when only one IP address observation existed with no evidence of child pornography access on that specific date.

The court determined the warrant lacked reasonable grounds and violated section 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant factors under section 24(2), the court excluded the evidence, finding the seriousness of the breach and its impact on privacy interests outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Two defendants were sentenced for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following their arrest during a traffic stop in which 31 grams of cocaine and a digital scale were found in their vehicle.

The Crown sought six months incarceration for each defendant.

The defendants argued exceptional circumstances warranted departure from the standard sentencing range.

The court imposed six months incarceration on the first defendant, finding insufficient exceptional circumstances, but imposed 90 days intermittent incarceration on the second defendant, finding his intellectual disability and demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a below-range sentence.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to trial for charges arising from a home invasion robbery on July 30, 2017.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, robbery, break and enter with assault, conspiracy, and possession of a weapon.

The Crown relied on video surveillance evidence rather than eyewitness identification.

The accused challenged committal, arguing the video quality was insufficient to identify him.

The court found the video was not sufficiently clear for direct identification but constituted circumstantial evidence of identity when considered with the accused's arrest the following day while wearing the same shirt seen in the video and being found in the registered vehicle of a co-accused.