Geraldine N. Sparrow

The defendants were charged with six counts of contravening section 154 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA) for importing motor scooters from China that violated emissions standards and lacked proper documentation.

The Crown alleged the defendants failed to comply with conditions requiring evidence of conformity and adherence to prescribed emissions standards.

The defendants argued they exercised due diligence by hiring compliance consultants, obtaining manufacturer assurances, and relying on EPA certification.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus for counts 1-3 (documentation violations) and that the defendants established due diligence as a defence for counts 4-6 (emissions violations).

All charges were dismissed.

The applicant pleaded guilty to impaired driving and driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

At sentencing, the applicant sought a declaration that Ontario's failure to proclaim section 255(5) of the Criminal Code—which would allow for a curative discharge for those in need of treatment for alcohol or drug addiction—violated sections 7, 12, and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant argued that the unavailability of this provision in Ontario, while available in other provinces and territories, constituted discrimination and cruel and unusual punishment.

The court dismissed all constitutional challenges, finding itself bound by prior appellate authority and determining that the applicant's arguments amounted to indirect attacks on mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

The accused was charged with two counts of making child pornography and possession of child pornography.

The Crown established that the accused created composite images by attaching the face of a young girl (cut from a Sears catalogue) to altered images of adult bodies, manipulating the images through photocopying and hand-drawing to emphasize child-like features including genitalia and breasts.

The accused claimed the images served scientific and educational purposes related to theories about human sexuality and reproduction.

The court rejected the accused's defences of scientific purpose and public good, finding that the images had child sexual abuse material as their dominant characteristic and were created for sexual purpose.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with possession of a prohibited handgun and related firearm offences.

The accused conceded to committal on all charges except those relating to possession of a handgun, arguing that the seized Jennings J-22 was not operational as defined in the Criminal Code.

The Crown's expert testified that the gun had a broken or missing breechface that prevented it from firing, but that the part could be repaired or replaced with a readily available slide assembly.

The court found that the evidence established the gun could be made operational through straightforward installation of readily available parts in a reasonable timeframe, and committed the accused to trial on all charges.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against an unconscious victim on July 25, 2014.

The victim, aged 21, met the 46-year-old accused in a bar and agreed to go to his apartment to use cocaine.

She became intoxicated and passed out.

The accused performed oral sex on her without consent while she was unconscious.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence and imposed a custodial sentence of 12 months, emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence.

A SOIRA order for ten years, three-year probation with no-contact conditions, a DNA order, and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marijuana, possession of proceeds of crime, and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence on the basis of alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the initial investigative detention was lawful, the search of the vehicle was a proper search incident to arrest, and the asking of the accused's name did not constitute a breach.

However, the court found a breach of section 10(b) when police failed to facilitate the accused's right to counsel for approximately one hour after securing the apartment.

Applying the section 24(2) test from R. v. Grant, the court admitted the evidence, finding that while the breach was significant, its impact was minimal and society's interest in adjudication on the merits was strong.

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder of Raheem Mitchell and Nishan Singh, as well as charges related to pointing, discharging, and using a firearm without lawful excuse, and possessing a handgun without a licence.

A shooting incident occurred on August 25, 2013, at Swansea Mews in Toronto.

The Crown sought committal for trial on all charges.

The defence challenged both the identity of the shooter and whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to kill.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including video footage, clothing matching, gunshot residue, and witness testimony, established that the accused was the shooter.

The court also found sufficient evidence of intent to kill based on the number of shots fired, the proximity of the victims, the trajectory of the bullets, and the accused's deliberate actions.

The Crown's request for additional counts of attempted murder against other members of the group was rejected as there was insufficient evidence of intent to kill them.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine.

An undercover officer purchased 0.16 grams of crack from the accused, with an additional small amount found upon search.

The accused had a prior conviction for trafficking cocaine in 2009, triggering a mandatory minimum penalty of one year imprisonment.

The court granted a joint submission for 1.5 days credit for each day of pretrial custody served, based on justifying circumstances including lack of remission credit, difficult prison conditions, the accused's status as an addict in need of rehabilitation unavailable during pretrial custody, and cooperative behaviour since arrest.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision on a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Leanne Freeman on November 29, 2011.

The Crown sought to commit both accused for trial on first-degree murder charges.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for second-degree murder but argued insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation for first-degree murder.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused for trial on first-degree murder charges, relying on two alternative theories: (1) planning and deliberation, and (2) murder committed during unlawful confinement under Criminal Code section 231(5)(e).

The accused, a project supervisor for a construction company, was charged with criminal negligence causing death and criminal negligence causing bodily harm following the collapse of a swing stage on December 24, 2009, at a Toronto construction site.

Five workers fell 13 stories to their deaths, one suffered debilitating injuries, and one survived because he was tied to a lifeline.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the accused for trial based primarily on his failure to ensure that workers were properly tied to lifelines while working on the suspended platform, despite clear regulatory requirements and training standards.

Applicants charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence on the basis that police breached their rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicants were stopped by plainclothes detectives during a community policing patrol.

The court found that although the applicants were arbitrarily detained when police blocked their passage on the sidewalk and exited their vehicle, the Charter breaches were not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The court admitted the evidence, finding that the detention was brief, the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest based on the smell of marijuana, and the reliable evidence was essential to the Crown's case.