Glenn Edward Joseph Sandberg

The offender, a Staff Sergeant with the Ontario Provincial Police, pleaded guilty to breaching the public trust under s. 122 of the Criminal Code for taking seized items (a beaded firearm strap and scope) and misleading colleagues for 11 months.

The items held significant sentimental and spiritual value for the Indigenous victim.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, citing the offender's public service, community support, and mental health struggles (PTSD and depression).

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and probation, arguing against a discharge.

The court denied the conditional discharge, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence in breach of trust cases involving police officers, particularly given the sustained deception and the impact on a vulnerable Indigenous victim.

A suspended sentence with 12 months probation and specific conditions was imposed.

Karen Cady was found guilty of fraud and possession of forged documents.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of proceeds of crime and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The court ordered forfeiture of real property and a motor vehicle, but exercised its discretion under s. 462.41 of the Criminal Code to return a portion of the sale proceeds to innocent third-party secured creditors, Computershare Trust Company of Canada and TD Auto Finance (Canada) Inc., to satisfy their legitimate interests.

A fine in lieu of forfeiture of $928,063.61 was imposed on Cady for the remaining proceeds of crime, with an 8-year payment period and a 4-year default imprisonment term.

Aline Zeitoune, a former Passport Officer, was found guilty of five criminal counts, including breach of trust, procuring forged passports, forgery, making false statements, and making forged passports available.

She participated in a scheme to enable imposters to obtain genuine Canadian passports by bypassing the normal application process.

The court considered the gravity of the breach of trust, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the principle of parity with co-accused Moshe Gur.

Despite mitigating factors such as no prior record and family support, her abuse of public trust as an insider warranted a substantial penitentiary sentence.

The applicants, Marco Maone and Carlo Fazzari, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in their criminal trial.

The court applied the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases, as established in R. v. Jordan, finding the 29-month delay to the anticipated trial completion to be reasonable.

The court rejected the argument that a preferred indictment should trigger an 18-month ceiling.

It also found that Maone failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite proceedings, while Fazzari, despite some efforts, did not establish that the case took 'markedly longer' than it should have, considering the complexity of the multi-accused drug trafficking investigation.

The applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The applicants, charged with murder, sought to change the trial venue from Gore Bay to Sudbury, citing pre-trial publicity, a small potential jury pool, and logistical inconveniences.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicants failed to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that a fair trial could not be achieved in Gore Bay despite the alleged prejudice, which could be mitigated by jury selection safeguards.

The court also noted the potential for the application to cause undue delay and ordered two jury panels to be summoned for jury selection.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control, operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(b), 11(e), and seeking remedies under sections 24(1) and 24(2).

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving and that the right to counsel was not violated.

However, the court found that the accused's detention for approximately 36 hours was arbitrary and unjustified under section 9 of the Charter.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy, finding that the cumulative effect of the detention duration and aggravating circumstances, combined with the absence of any explanation for the detention despite the accused's parents being present and willing to take him home, undermined the integrity of the judicial process.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of Oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, arguing that police relied exclusively on information from a confidential informant that lacked sufficient detail and corroboration.

The court found that the arrest was lawful based on the totality of circumstances, including the credibility of the informant, the compelling nature of the information provided, and police corroboration through surveillance.

The court distinguished the case from R v. Daley, finding that the informant had firsthand knowledge, a proven track record, and that police observations corroborated the informant's information.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the sexual intercourse between the accused and the complainant was consensual.

The complainant testified that she repeatedly told the accused she did not want to have sex, but he used force and violence to overcome her resistance, causing multiple injuries.

The accused claimed the sexual intercourse was consensual and that the complainant initiated sexual interest.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence.

The court found that the accused knew exactly what he was doing and used force and violence when the complainant would not comply.

The court rejected the accused's defences based on lack of sexual experience and cultural differences.

The accused was found guilty.

In a pretrial motion in a prosecution for attempted murder, the Crown sought to admit several pieces of correspondence involving the accused and officials of a school board where he had been employed as a teacher.

The Crown argued the documents demonstrated animus and motive toward the alleged victim, a school board director.

The defence argued the letters constituted discreditable conduct evidence whose prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The court reviewed the governing principles for admissibility of discreditable conduct evidence, including the balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect and the relevance of motive evidence.

The court concluded the letters were admissible because they were relevant to the accused’s state of mind and motive, and their probative value outweighed any prejudicial impact.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion seeking exclusion of physical evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, arguing it was obtained through searches authorized by a defective general warrant.

The court found the information to obtain the warrant contained irrelevant discreditable conduct, misleading and incomplete information, and unsupported assertions about the accused’s presence near the crime scene, resulting in a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

Because the CDSA warrant was based on information gathered through execution of the invalid general warrant, it also violated the accused’s s. 8 rights.

Applying the framework from R. v. Grant, the court held that although the Charter breach was serious and intruded upon residential privacy, the police conduct was not deliberate and the evidence was reliable and important to the prosecution.

Balancing these factors, the court declined to exclude the evidence.