Gregory James Elder

The applicant, charged with child pornography and sexual assault offences, brought Charter applications to exclude evidence obtained from a production order and subsequent search warrants.

The court found breaches of the applicant's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights, which the Crown conceded, resulting in the excision of his statements from the search warrants.

The court also found s. 8 breaches for videotaping the applicant using the toilet in a holding cell without adequate privacy measures, and for police relying on an IP address obtained from a Cyber Tipline report without prior judicial authorization, applying the Supreme Court's decision in Bykovets.

A further s. 8 claim regarding information obtained from Ontario Works was dismissed.

Conducting a s. 24(2) analysis, the court concluded that despite the breaches, the evidence was highly reliable and critical to the Crown's case, and the police had acted in good faith based on the law as it existed prior to Bykovets.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Following a jury conviction for manslaughter arising from an intimate partner's fatal fall down a staircase, the sentencing judge determined the respondent was the aggressor, deliberately pushed the deceased during a prolonged altercation, and was not acting in self-defence, but the Crown did not prove an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm.

The court treated the offence as serious but closer to an accident than to murder, while identifying substantial aggravating features including the intimate relationship, a pattern of abusive conduct, the deceased's vulnerability from intoxication and illness, and the impact on family and friends.

Mitigating weight was given to the respondent's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, strong rehabilitative prospects, and more than two years on highly restrictive bail.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, restraint, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a custodial sentence of three and a half years, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, together with DNA, weapons prohibition, and non-communication orders.

During a trial for second degree murder, the Crown brought a motion to question its own witness in chief about an affidavit she filed in an unrelated criminal matter, in which she recanted allegations against her son-in-law.

The Crown sought to preemptively address an anticipated attack on the witness's credibility.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the collateral fact rule did not prohibit the questioning, the evidence was more prejudicial than probative as it was unrelated to the facts in dispute and would unduly distract the jury.

The accused pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a motor vehicle under s. 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code after a police pursuit involving multiple red-light violations, roadway departures, and collisions with police vehicles.

The sentencing issue was whether denunciation and deterrence required a conditional sentence, or whether a conditional discharge remained fit in light of individualized circumstances.

The court weighed significant aggravating features of the driving against mitigating factors including early guilty plea, remorse, absence of record, rehabilitation efforts, and social-context evidence including anti-Black racism impacts.

The court also considered collateral consequences relating to employability and immigration inadmissibility risk, applying parity and proportionality principles.

A conditional discharge with probation and a driving prohibition was imposed.

Two accused were jointly charged on a fourteen-count indictment involving sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, making and possessing child pornography.

The offences were alleged to have occurred over more than two decades involving multiple complainants who were children of a family member of one accused.

The court considered a similar fact application by the Crown, ultimately dismissing the application with respect to two complainants whose evidence was found to be tainted by collusion and whose allegations of involvement by one accused were only disclosed after police informed one complainant of an unrelated assault on her child.

One accused pleaded guilty mid-trial to multiple counts involving child pornography and sexual assaults on two complainants.

On the remaining counts, the court found the first accused guilty of sexual assault on one complainant and guilty of two counts of possession of child pornography, while acquitting both accused of the remaining contested charges.

The court found insufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt sexual assaults by the first accused on the other complainants, whose evidence was intertwined with collusion-tainted allegations.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference against a child victim aged 11 or 12 years old.

The offence involved two separate incidents of sexual touching, including direct contact with the victim's genitalia.

After a lengthy procedural history spanning over two years, including an unsuccessful application to strike the guilty plea and a fitness assessment confirming the accused's fitness to stand trial, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day with six months credit for time served, resulting in 18 months remaining custody.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors including the guilty plea, family support, and the accused's age and cognitive deficits, finding that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence.

The court also imposed a 20-year SOIRA order, a DNA order, and section 161 prohibition orders, along with 12 months probation.

Kayil Torres pled guilty to possessing and accessing child exploitation material on multiple occasions in 2022.

The court considered extensive forensic evidence, expert psychological assessments diagnosing Torres with pedophilia, and his personal circumstances including youth, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The Crown sought a 2-year penitentiary sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the Defence argued for a conditional sentence based on mitigating factors.

The court found the aggravating factors, including the volume and nature of the material and the offender’s high blameworthiness, outweighed mitigating factors.

It imposed an 18-month concurrent jail sentence on both counts, a 2-year probation order, and ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order and a s. 161 order restricting contact with children.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and robbery after attacking a pregnant woman in a public washroom.

Following a psychiatric assessment, the Crown and defence agreed the offender should be designated a long-term offender but disagreed on the sentence length.

The court weighed the offender's high risk of violent and sexual recidivism, his history of violence against women, and his bipolar affective disorder.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years in custody (two years going forward after pre-sentence credit) and a ten-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

The offender was found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman with whom he had recently started an intimate relationship.

He absconded prior to his sentencing hearing, which proceeded in his absence.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the intimate relationship and the use of force, as well as the mitigating factor of potential collateral immigration consequences.

The offender was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, along with a 10-year firearms prohibition and a lifetime SOIRA order.

Following a sexual assault conviction, the Crown sought to sentence the accused in absentia after he absconded.

The court, having previously erred in not revoking bail, determined that the accused had voluntarily absented himself to avoid consequences.

While acknowledging the need for sufficient information for a fit sentence, the court found enough information available from trial evidence and a previous presentence report.

The court granted a brief adjournment to allow defence counsel to follow up on information and make a final contact attempt, but confirmed the sentencing would proceed on the adjourned date regardless of the accused's presence.

An arrest warrant was issued.

This decision addresses the admissibility of blood and medical records seized from the accused, who was charged with impaired driving and driving with an unlawful blood alcohol concentration (BAC) following a single-vehicle accident.

The accused challenged the search warrant and production order, arguing a lack of reasonable and probable grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO) and that the ITO was misleading.

The court found that the ITO was misleading regarding the presence of a whisky bottle (implying it was open when its state was unknown) and that a witness's bald suspicion of impairment lacked sufficient factual basis.

Excising the misleading information, the court concluded that the remaining facts did not establish reasonable and probable grounds, rendering the seizure warrantless and a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the section 24(2) Grant factors, the court determined that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, primarily due to the serious impact on the accused's Charter rights, despite the officer's conduct not being particularly egregious.

The evidence was therefore excluded.

Terrell Burke-Whittaker pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm after discharging it towards a busy highway during a funeral viewing.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the discharge of the firearm in a public place, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's sincere remorse, positive rehabilitation efforts while on bail (starting a business, acceptance into fire academy), and strong community support.

Despite the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation in firearms cases, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the normal penitentiary range.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by three years of probation, along with a DNA order and a ten-year firearms prohibition.

This sentencing decision concerns Michael Chapman, who pleaded guilty to approximately 20 counts under the Criminal Code and two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offences included mail theft, dangerous driving, fleeing police, operating a stolen vehicle, identity theft, fraudulent credit card use, property damage, and uttering threats, alongside trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine.

Aggravating factors included a criminal record, significant victim impact, and the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs.

Mitigating factors were the guilty plea, remorse, addiction as a contributing factor, successful engagement in addiction treatment, completion of high school, strong family support, and a job offer.

The Crown sought a total sentence of approximately four years of incarceration, while the defence argued for a suspended sentence or a community-based sentence.

The court imposed a total net sentence of 20 months, to be served as a conditional sentence, followed by 12 months of probation, a DNA order, a lifetime s. 109 prohibition, and a two-year driving prohibition.

The judge found a conditional sentence appropriate, balancing the seriousness of the offences with the offender's rehabilitation and the principle of restraint, concluding that community safety would not be endangered.

The defendant, N.M., was charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation of his step-daughter, A.D. The Crown's case relied on A.D.'s testimony and an audio recording.

The defendant denied the allegations, and his testimony was found credible by the court.

The court identified inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's evidence, including potential motives related to her biological father.

Applying the R. v. W.D. framework, the court found that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all charges.

The applicant, a young Black male, was stopped at a RIDE program.

Officers smelled cannabis and observed cannabis shake on his clothing.

The applicant admitted to smoking earlier and being a "messy roller".

The officers detained the applicant and searched his vehicle under section 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act, locating a loaded handgun in a closed satchel on the passenger seat.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the firearm, alleging racial profiling and violations of his rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of racial profiling.

The court held that the officers had reasonable grounds to search the vehicle and that the Cannabis Control Act authorized the search of the closed satchel.

The court also found no violations of the applicant's rights to counsel, which were suspended during the brief roadside investigation.

The appellant appealed his conviction for 'Over 80', arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his s. 10(b) Charter application.

The appellant contended that an 8-minute delay at the roadside before being informed of his right to counsel, and the police officer's decision to delay access to counsel until arriving at the station, violated his rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding that the brief delay to secure the scene and the decision to wait for a private environment at the station were reasonable.

The court further held that even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The offender, a 19-year-old unlicensed driver, drove a vehicle at speeds up to 170 km/h while heavily impaired by alcohol, resulting in a catastrophic collision that killed one person and seriously injured three others.

He was convicted of criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, and impaired driving causing death and bodily harm.

The court weighed the offender's youth and lack of prior record against the extreme moral blameworthiness of his prolonged, dangerous driving.

The offender was sentenced to 9 years in prison and an 18-year driving prohibition.

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting his estranged wife while intoxicated.

The assault occurred over a 60-90 minute period while the victim was in bed with their child.

The Crown sought a 12-month jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and breach of trust, alongside mitigating factors including the accused's lack of a criminal record, compliance with release conditions, and the victim's request that he not be jailed.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

During a sentencing hearing for sexual assault, the defence objected to the admissibility of a Victim Impact Statement because it was not in the prescribed statutory form (Form 34.2) and argued that its first four paragraphs were irrelevant.

The court noted that s. 722(4) of the Criminal Code requires the statutory form, but admitted the statement on consent after the Crown offered to resubmit it properly.

The court also ruled that the first four paragraphs were admissible to provide context to the victim's circumstances, noting it would disregard any irrelevant portions pursuant to s. 722(8).

The defendant was charged with criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm, and impaired driving causing death and bodily harm, following a horrific motor vehicle collision.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver, as the defendant claimed his friend was driving the vehicle.

The court applied the W.D. analysis and relied on circumstantial evidence, including mirror-image seatbelt injuries sustained by the occupants, to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver.

The court also found that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol and that his driving at excessive speeds constituted a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonable person.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts.