Gregory Lafontaine

Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from a wiretap investigation into contraband tobacco activity, the accused faced two laundering counts, one cannabis count, and one forgery count.

The court applied the Villaroman framework to the circumstantial case and the Carter co-conspirator hearsay test to the real-estate laundering and forgery allegations.

The court found the accused guilty of laundering proceeds in relation to one stolen silver ingot and in relation to a real-estate project funded with proceeds of contraband tobacco, and guilty of possessing CBD powder for the purpose of distribution.

The court held that possession for the purpose of selling illegal cannabis was captured by s. 9(2) of the Cannabis Act.

The forgery count was dismissed because the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused joined or understood the conspiracy's object.

The offender was found guilty of importing over 500 kilograms of opium, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and related conspiracy charges.

The Crown sought a life sentence due to the massive quantity of drugs and the offender's role, while the defence sought three to eight years.

The court weighed the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence against the offender's lack of prior record, strong community support, and the tragic abduction of his brother related to the drug scheme.

The court imposed a global sentence of 16 years in custody, reduced by 13 months for pre-sentence custody.

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 appellant appealed the 90-day administrative suspension of his driver's licence for refusing to provide a breath sample.

He argued that he was unable to comply with the demand for medical reasons, specifically post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from a violent assault and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) which caused a severe fear of choking.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal accepted the uncontested medical evidence establishing both conditions.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the appellant's combined conditions rendered him unable to provide a breath sample for medical reasons.

The appeal was allowed and the suspension was set aside.

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 applicants brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for first-degree murder and criminal organization charges arising from a large wiretap investigation (Project Siphon).

The total delay was 39 months for the homicide and over 41 months for the criminal organization charges.

After deducting defence delay and a two-month discrete exceptional circumstance for the COVID-19 pandemic, the net delay remained above the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found the remaining delay was justified by the particular complexity of the case, which involved voluminous disclosure, numerous targets, and complex privilege issues.

The applications were dismissed.

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 appellant appealed a conviction for invitation to sexual touching involving a young child, arguing that the trial judge made improper credibility findings, shifted the burden of proof, and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

The Crown's case relied largely on a video-recorded statement given by the complainant as a child, which was admitted under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code and adopted at trial.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge properly assessed the evidence, including discrepancies and defence testimony, and repeatedly reminded himself of the Crown’s burden of proof.

Although some factual inconsistencies were not expressly resolved, the trial judge considered them within the reasonable doubt analysis.

The appellate court concluded that the verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence and disclosed no reversible error.

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 accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.

The trial concluded over 21 months after the information was sworn.

The accused brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The Crown argued that the delay was partially caused by the defence and the COVID-19 pandemic, specifically the unavailability of an in-person French interpreter.

The court found that the failure to secure an in-person interpreter was a state failure, not a discrete event caused by the pandemic.

After deducting defence delay, the net delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found a violation of section 11(b) and granted a stay of proceedings.

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.