Greg Dorsz

The accused, Norbert Budai, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of his estranged wife, Henrietta Viski, who died after being doused with gasoline and set on fire.

Budai pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder but guilty to second-degree murder, which the Crown did not accept.

The court, sitting without a jury, found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate, rejecting the defence's argument that Budai's consumption of alcohol and fentanyl limited his capacity to plan and deliberate.

Budai was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and flight from police, arguing errors in principle and demonstrable unfitness.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge misapprehended the respondent's prior custodial sentences and mischaracterized her criminal record as unrelated.

The Court concluded that the original six-month custodial sentence was demonstrably unfit given the gravity of the offences and the respondent's high degree of moral responsibility and history of defying authority.

The appeal was allowed, and an additional 18 months less a day of incarceration was imposed.

The defendants, Basil Dixon and Nathan Brown, were charged with conspiracy to import cocaine following a large-scale police investigation ("Project Southam").

The trial, heard by a judge alone, relied heavily on intercepted communications and surveillance.

The court found that voice identification evidence from a detective constable was unreliable due to limited exposure and lack of formal training.

However, based on circumstantial evidence, including intercepts and surveillance footage, the court identified Dixon as "B" and Brown as "R" in the communications.

Applying the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, the court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Dixon conspired to import cocaine from Guyana (Count One) and that both Dixon and Brown conspired to import cocaine using a pilot (Count Three).

Deborah Omolade Oguntoyinbo pleaded guilty to numerous fraud-related charges and breaches of release orders spanning several years.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 years imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 18-24 months.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, citing the defendant's extensive criminal record of over seventy prior convictions (predominantly fraud-related), her persistent and flagrant breaches of release conditions (including cutting off a GPS monitor), and a lack of demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

Emphasizing specific deterrence and denunciation, the judge imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, along with significant restitution orders totaling over $86,000 to multiple victims who suffered financial and personal harm, including new Canadians and small business owners.

The court also granted credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh custodial conditions.

The applicant sought a stay of charges due to a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating total delay, subtracting defence delay (including prolonged non-attendance, inefficient re-tracing of procedural steps, time pursuing resolution, and defence counsel unavailability), and accounting for the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

Despite significant Crown efforts, the net delay still exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases by 22 days.

The court found the s. 11(b) right was breached and stayed the charges.

This decision provides written reasons for oral rulings made during a jury trial for human trafficking and related charges.

The court addressed the admissibility of two key pieces of evidence: a police bulletin seeking information on other alleged victims and escort advertisements found using a commercial computer program called "Traffic Jam." The police bulletin was deemed inadmissible due to its minimal probative value and significant moral and reasoning prejudice, as it suggested the accused's involvement in wider trafficking without sufficient corroboration.

The escort advertisements themselves were found admissible as they corroborated the complainant's testimony about engaging in sex work.

However, information generated by the "Traffic Jam" program, such as an associated email address, was ruled inadmissible as hearsay and for lacking proper expert foundation, requiring redaction.

The defendant, Prince Adjei-Boateng, was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime following an undercover police investigation.

The Crown alleged he was the supplier for a drug dealer, Michael Patania.

The court considered the admissibility of co-conspirator statements and the defendant's spontaneous exculpatory statement.

Despite strong circumstantial evidence, the court found reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence, corroboration of the defendant's alternative explanation (used car parts business), and the police's failure to examine seized cell phones for direct communication between the defendant and the drug dealer.

The defendant was acquitted on all charges.

J.G. was convicted of sex trade-related offenses (influencing/directing, advertising, obtaining material benefit from a minor's sex trade) and child pornography offenses (possession and distribution).

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years and six months.

Key legal considerations included the unconstitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for the sex trade offenses, the inadmissibility of the accused's unrequested disciplinary records from custody, and the application of systemic racism as a mitigating factor in sentencing Black offenders.

The court found mandatory minimums unconstitutional, excluded the disciplinary records, and took judicial notice of systemic racism's deleterious impacts as a mitigating factor.

Credit for pre-trial custody and lockdown days due to COVID-19 was also applied.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to Section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of her right to a speedy trial under Section 11(b).

The applicant was arrested on November 30, 2016, and charged with driving over 80.

The information was sworn on December 5, 2016.

Trial dates were scheduled for August 21 and 22, 2018, resulting in a total delay of approximately 626 days or 20 months and 26 days.

The court found that the net delay, after accounting for defence waiver of 11(b) rights during resolution discussions, exceeded the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The primary causes of delay were inadequate disclosure practices, particularly the failure to timely provide booking videos and the identity of a searching officer, lack of Crown resources, Crown unavailability for earlier trial dates, and institutional resource constraints.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

This voir dire ruling addresses the admissibility of inculpatory statements made by Joshua Barreira to police following his arrest for first-degree murder.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary due to police oppression (cold, sickness, hunger, exhaustion, denial of right to silence) and inducements related to his wife and brother's arrests.

The court found no oppression, noting Barreira was a "savvy and experienced individual" who understood his rights and repeatedly attempted to negotiate a deal.

The court also determined that the idea of a false confession to protect family members was self-generated by Barreira, and the police officer's actions did not constitute improper inducements.

Consequently, the statements were deemed voluntary and admissible at trial, subject to editing out references to Barreira's criminal record.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and failing or refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown alleged the accused was pulled over for traffic violations, exhibited signs of impairment, and failed to provide a suitable breath sample.

The defence challenged both the validity of the breath demand and whether impairment was proven.

The court found that the officer lacked both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand, having confused the lower "reasonable suspicion" standard applicable to approved screening device demands with the higher "reasonable and probable grounds" standard required for breath demands.

The court also found the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, noting inconsistencies in officer observations, the absence of translation of field sobriety test instructions, and the accused's apparent competent performance on the tests.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning three accused charged with unlawfully importing cocaine into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought to commit all three accused as parties to the importation offence and/or of conspiring to import cocaine.

The evidence established that a young woman was provided with a free trip to Jamaica, where she was instructed to return with a suitcase containing over 1.4 kilograms of cocaine.

The court applied the test for preliminary inquiries, examining whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty.

The decision addresses the roles of each accused in facilitating the importation scheme, the doctrine of innocent agents, and the elements of conspiracy.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial for armed home invasion robbery, kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom, and related offences.

The evidence included direct testimony from the complainant, extensive video surveillance from the complainant's home security system, CTV news helicopter footage of the police takedown, and mall security video.

The court found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably find guilt on charges of armed robbery, kidnapping with use of firearms, masked commission of indictable offences, and escape from lawful custody.

All four accused were committed to stand trial in Superior Court before a judge and jury.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired and driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg per 100 ml.

The Crown alleged the accused drove to a liquor store while already intoxicated, purchased vodka, and was observed by LCBO employees exhibiting signs of impairment before nearly causing an accident.

The accused contended he consumed alcohol only after arriving home and before police arrived.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as lacking credibility and not raising reasonable doubt.

The court also dismissed Charter applications regarding alleged violations of section 8 (unreasonable search) and section 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.