Graham Theodore Clark

The accused, facing charges including possession of a loaded handgun and fentanyl for trafficking, brought an application for disclosure of occurrence reports related to two residences and three individuals (Cassandra Puskas, Sean Collins, and Tyrone Lothian).

The Crown opposed the request, arguing it was a fishing expedition, untimely, or required a different disclosure application type.

The court largely granted the accused's disclosure application, finding the information relevant for potential witness credibility or an alternate suspect defence, and that it fell under the Crown's first-party disclosure obligations as "obviously relevant" information.

Stephanie Slack pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl.

The Crown sought a provincial custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence based on the defendant's significant rehabilitation.

The court, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for fentanyl trafficking but also considering rehabilitation, determined that a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by two years probation, was appropriate.

The judge found that a conditional sentence, with sufficiently punitive conditions, could achieve the sentencing objectives without hindering the defendant's progress in recovery and employment, even if exceptional circumstances were not strictly required.

The defendant, Mr. Edwards, applied for leave to cross-examine affiants and challenged a search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing a reasonable expectation of privacy in the searched residence.

The court considered factors for establishing a privacy interest, including presence, control, ownership, historical use, and ability to regulate access.

While the defendant relied on the Crown's theory, the court found that the objective evidentiary basis did not support a reasonable expectation of privacy, concluding that the defendant was merely a temporary house guest.

Consequently, Mr. Edwards lacked standing to challenge the warrant, and his application was dismissed.

The defendant, Chad Valiquette, applied under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stay charges of assault and sexual assault due to unreasonable delay.

The court analyzed the total delay of 1331 days against the 30-month Jordan ceiling, deducting periods attributed to defence actions (awaiting an appeal decision, Legal Aid issues) and exceptional circumstances (threat to counsel, COVID-19 court suspensions).

The court found that after deductions, the remaining delay was 27.99 months, which is below the Jordan ceiling.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The defendant, Preston Proulx, was accused of sexual assault, forcible confinement, threatening death, and assault against his former girlfriend.

The central issue was credibility, as the complainant and defendant presented vastly different accounts of the events.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, supported by photographic evidence and the defendant's emails containing admissions and demonstrating a tendency to anger and dishonesty.

The defendant was found guilty of all four charges.

The defendant, Kayne Robinson, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime (cash over $5,000).

A third charge of cannabis possession was withdrawn.

The Crown's case relied on police observations during a search warrant execution and expert testimony regarding drug dealing practices.

The defence argued that the cocaine was not in Robinson's possession and highlighted inconsistencies in police testimony, a gap in surveillance, and lack of forensic evidence.

The court found Robinson not guilty of the cocaine-related charges due to reasonable doubt arising from the inconsistencies in police evidence and Robinson's credible testimony.

The court also provided guidance on the Superior Court's jurisdiction over summary conviction offences when charged alongside indictable offences, noting that the Superior Court generally lacks jurisdiction for standalone summary offences and that reconstituting as a summary conviction court would be unwise due to potential appellate conflicts.

The accused, J. A. V., was charged with seven sexual offences involving three complainants, all under 16.

The court considered similar fact evidence for most allegations.

The court found the accused guilty on two counts related to M. H. (first and fourth incidents of sexual touching while M. was asleep), and not guilty on the remaining five counts involving B. D. and T. G., as well as the "lounge chair" and "penis stroking" incidents involving M. H., due to reasonable doubt regarding credibility, reliability, and implausibility of the complainants' or accused's evidence.

Submissions were requested for a potential stay on the guilty counts and disposition of two remaining Criminal Code breach counts.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against the complainant on April 25 and April 29, 2012, in Oakville.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The complainant gave a detailed videotaped statement to police under oath, describing violent physical assaults including slapping, pushing, choking, and punching.

At trial, the complainant recanted her statements, claiming she could not remember the events and that police had forced her to give a statement.

The court found the complainant's trial evidence highly unreliable, riddled with inconsistencies and lacking common sense.

The court concluded that the complainant had initiated and provoked the arguments, was emotionally unstable, and had called police as a retaliatory measure after the accused ended their relationship.

The court found no independent corroboration of the alleged assaults and rejected the complainant's credibility.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.