Gregory Lafontaine

The appellant appealed his conviction on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference, challenging the Ontario Court of Justice judge's refusal to permit him to re-elect trial mode without Crown consent under section 561(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant had initially elected trial in the Ontario Court of Justice in August 2020, but sought to re-elect to Superior Court of Justice with judge and jury in January 2021.

The central issue was the proper interpretation of "the day first appointed for the trial" for purposes of the 60-day deadline to re-elect without Crown consent.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that November 19, 2020—when a section 278.3 application regarding third-party records was scheduled—constituted the day first appointed for trial, making the deadline for re-election September 20, 2020.

The appellant's January 2021 re-election was therefore untimely.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Aris Saha’s conviction and sentence appeals for sexual assault.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s analysis of consent, including her treatment of the complainant’s alleged statement about “liking it rough” and her assessment of the evidence regarding subjective consent.

The court also upheld the 12-month custodial sentence, finding it was not demonstrably unfit and that the trial judge properly considered the available sentencing options and relevant factors.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on serious drug trafficking charges, which resulted from the trial judge's exclusion of evidence seized under search warrants.

The trial judge had found the warrants improperly authorized due to insufficient compelling and corroborated confidential source information, leading to a Charter s. 8 violation and s. 24(2) exclusion.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in misapprehending the evidence regarding the compelling nature of the confidential information and misapplying the corroboration requirement.

The Court also found an error in assessing the nexus between the alleged offences and the searched locations.

The appeal was allowed, acquittals set aside, and a new trial ordered, as the searches were deemed legally authorized.

The appellants were convicted of various drug-related offences following a large-scale police investigation involving wiretaps, tracking warrants, and search warrants.

They appealed their convictions, arguing the application judge erred in dismissing their pre-trial Garofoli applications challenging the constitutionality of the searches and interceptions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding no errors in the application judge's assessment of the wiretap authorizations, the reliance on confidential informants, the refusal to excise certain information from the warrants, and the determinations regarding reasonable expectations of privacy in condominium units and common areas.

The applicants, Mahmoud Al-Ramahi and Atour Paul, sought a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence under ss. 24(1) and 24(2) of the Charter, alleging improper interception and handling of solicitor-client privileged communications during a wiretap investigation ("Project Siphon").

Al-Ramahi claimed widespread violations of his ss. 7 and 8 Charter rights due to intercepted audio calls and text messages with his lawyers.

Paul joined the application, arguing the overbroad search and "unfair advantage" to police affected him.

The court found that Al-Ramahi failed to prove improper interception or handling of audio calls but succeeded in demonstrating that his privileged text messages were improperly accessed and handled, breaching his ss. 7 and 8 rights.

The court dismissed the request for a stay of proceedings, finding it too drastic, but ordered the exclusion of all of Al-Ramahi's text messages intercepted after May 29, 2020.

Paul's application was dismissed as he did not suffer a breach of his own Charter rights and lacked standing to claim a remedy based on breaches of another's rights.

The accused, R.M., faced multiple charges including assault, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault stemming from incidents with the complainant, A.J., following their separation.

The court dismissed one assault charge (Count #2) under the de minimis non curat lex defence, finding the contact trivial.

R.M. was found not guilty of unlawful confinement (Count #3) as the complainant was not deprived of freedom for a significant period.

For three sexual assault charges (Counts #4, #5, #6, #8), the court found R.M. not guilty of sexual assault.

Specifically, for Counts #4 and #8, R.M. was found guilty of the lesser included offence of assault simpliciter, as the non-consensual contact was assaultive but not sexual in nature.

For Count #7, R.M. was found guilty of sexual assault, as the intentional, non-consensual contact clearly violated the complainant's sexual integrity.

The offender, Abu Mandal, was convicted of selling items intended for the production of a Schedule I substance (methamphetamine) contrary to s. 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a 2.5-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed a fine and probation or a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the offence and the harm caused by methamphetamine, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of criminal record, advanced age (77), and low risk of reoffending.

The court found that a period of incarceration was warranted but deemed the Crown's proposed sentence excessive given the offender's age and personal circumstances.

A sentence of 1 year in custody followed by 2 years probation was imposed, and a discretionary DNA order was declined.

Kevin Tran appealed his convictions for narcotics, proceeds of crime, and firearm offences.

He argued that the verdicts were unreasonable, the trial judge erred in not excluding evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the trial judge erred in not staying proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b).

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding the verdicts reasonable, the s. 24(2) decision correct (despite an unconstitutional warrant, evidence was admissible due to good faith), and the s. 11(b) delay justified by exceptional circumstances related to a joint trial.

The accused, Walid Wakeel, was charged with dangerous driving causing death, dangerous driving causing bodily harm, and two counts of failing to stop his vehicle after an accident with intent to escape civil or criminal liability.

The trial judge found that the accused's driving was objectively dangerous and constituted a marked departure from the actions of a reasonable person, having accelerated through a red light at high speed.

The court also found that the accused fled the scene with the intent to escape liability, despite arguments that he was in shock or later surrendered to police.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

Brian Luckman was convicted by a jury of trafficking in methamphetamine.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 2 years less one day.

The court found Luckman to be a principal offender in a high-level commercial drug trafficking operation involving 4 kilograms of methamphetamine intended for export to Australia.

Considering aggravating factors like the gravity of the offence and mitigating factors such as his lack of a criminal record and prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment, rejecting the conditional sentence.

The accused, Abu Mandal, was charged under s. 7.1(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for selling items intending they be used in the unlawful production of a Schedule I substance (methamphetamine).

The Crown presented circumstantial evidence that Mandal sold chemicals and equipment to an individual operating a clandestine methamphetamine lab.

The central issue was whether Mandal possessed the requisite intent.

The court found that Mandal had knowledge of the unlawful end-use of the chemicals, which was sufficient to establish intent, rejecting the defence's argument that a desire for the outcome was required.

The court relied on principles from aiding and abetting cases under the Criminal Code.

Mandal was found guilty.

Alex Yizhak was found guilty of possession of a prohibited firearm and a BB gun.

The court considered sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as aggravating factors (loaded, prohibited, concealable firearm in a condo) and mitigating factors (no prior record, strong community support, attenuated responsibility due to prior gun violence exposure).

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it insufficient for denunciation and deterrence and a violation of parity.

A jail sentence of two years less a day, reduced to 20 months with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail, was imposed, along with probation, a s. 109 order, and DNA order.

The appellant, Kevin Hanse, appealed his convictions for two firearm offences (attempting to obtain possession of a firearm and transferring ammunition) and his sentence.

The Crown's case relied heavily on wiretap evidence, with the defence challenging the admissibility of expert and lay witness testimony regarding code words for firearms and marijuana.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh post-sentencing evidence concerning a workplace injury and argued the trial judge erred in assessing aggravating factors and imposing a consecutive sentence for a marijuana trafficking offence to which he had pleaded guilty.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, upholding the trial judge's evidentiary rulings and finding no error in the sentencing principles or the fitness of the sentence.

The applicant, Christopher Janisse, sought bail pending appeal of his convictions for multiple drug trafficking offences and possession of proceeds of crime, for which he received a 16-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered the three-part test under section 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal is not frivolous, whether the applicant will surrender, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest (balancing enforceability and reviewability).

While the Crown conceded the first two factors, the court found that despite the grounds of appeal not being frivolous and involving alleged police misconduct, the seriousness of the offences, the length of the sentence, and the applicant's concessions on certain counts weighed heavily in favour of enforceability.

The application for bail pending appeal was denied.

The offender was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking offences, including possession of 21 kilograms of cocaine and two kilograms of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court rejected the offender's argument that he believed the fentanyl was cocaine, finding he was operating a high-level commercial enterprise.

Weighing the severe aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drugs against mitigating factors including restrictive bail conditions and pandemic-related pre-trial custody, the court imposed a global sentence of 16 years, reduced to 14 years and 9.5 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, Alex Yizhak, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay after being found guilty of firearms charges, claiming the Jordan ceiling was exceeded by 17 days.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the application for two primary reasons.

First, the application was untimely, as the defence failed to raise concerns or act proactively regarding delay despite knowing the trial's temporal bounds months in advance, which deprived the Crown and Court of opportunities to remedy the delay.

Second, the court found that significant periods of delay were solely attributable to defence conduct, including inefficiency in reviewing disclosure and counsel's unavailability, which far exceeded the 17-day alleged breach.

The judge's medical leave, which caused "verdict deliberation delay," was deemed an exceptional circumstance and not a factor to "bump up" the delay beyond the Jordan ceiling.

The accused, having been convicted of drug trafficking offences, applied to reopen his trial prior to sentencing to adduce fresh evidence.

The fresh evidence related to findings in a separate proceeding that a police officer had deliberately misled another officer to obtain search warrants.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the evidence could have been adduced at trial with due diligence.

The court concluded that the application was an attempt to reverse a tactical decision made by defence counsel at trial, who had chosen to challenge a different warrant rather than pursue the missing video evidence.

The applicant, Alex Yizhak, sought to make inquiries of the presiding judge regarding her health-related leave, which had impacted the deliberative period of his criminal trial.

These inquiries were intended to support a s. 11(b) application for unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the information already provided was sufficient, the questions amounted to an improper cross-examination of the judge, probed into private health information, and resembled a public inquiry beyond the scope of a criminal trial.

The applicant, Alex Yizhak, sought a mistrial alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias by the trial judge.

The judge, after delivering a guilty verdict, disclosed the reason for a five-month delay in judgment (a health-related leave) when the accused indicated a potential s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The applicant argued this unsolicited disclosure, which could favour the Crown in a Jordan analysis, constituted bias by shaping the evidentiary record.

The court dismissed the application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, emphasizing the presumption of judicial impartiality and the judge's proactive role in managing proceedings and providing relevant information.

The accused, Khanij Chopra, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance, "over 80," and possession of a controlled substance.

The defense filed a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), seeking to exclude breath samples and the controlled substance.

The Crown sought to admit the accused's utterances.

The court found significant Charter breaches due to prolonged unlawful detention and denial of the right to counsel, leading to the exclusion of the breath samples and the controlled substance under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty of the "over 80" and possession charges.

For the impaired operation charge, the court found reasonable doubt regarding impairment at the time police located the accused, leading to an acquittal on that count as well.