Harutyun Apel

The Crown and the accused brought several pretrial applications in a criminal proceeding involving an alleged acid attack.

The court ruled the accused's statement to police was voluntary and admitted certain discreditable conduct evidence.

However, the court found violations of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights during police transport and a violation of s. 503(1) of the Criminal Code (and ss. 9/10(c) of the Charter) for unreasonable delay in bringing the accused before a justice.

Consequently, statements made during transport and the audio-video recorded statement at the station were excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused's Garofoli and other Charter applications were dismissed.

The accused was charged with making and possessing child pornography, specifically text messages, contrary to sections 163.1(2) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person depicted in the messages was under 18 years old.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including an agreed statement of facts and the text messages exchanged between the accused and an undercover officer.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Villaroman and R. v. Starr regarding circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof.

Ultimately, the court found that the only reasonable inference was that the numbers "13" and "14" in the messages referred to age, and convicted the accused on both counts.

The accused, Ivan Marincic, was sentenced for dangerous driving simpliciter after a motor vehicle collision caused life-altering injuries to another driver.

The sentencing hearing addressed whether the court had jurisdiction to award damages or costs for serious Charter violations by police during Marincic's arrest.

The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to award civil damages or costs in a criminal proceeding, emphasizing that such remedies must be sought through civil actions.

Despite the severe police misconduct, a stay of proceedings was deemed inappropriate due to the seriousness of the offence and the victim's injuries.

As a remedy for the Charter violations, the court imposed a significantly reduced sentence of nine months, to be served as a conditional sentence.

Davide Manganiello was charged with possession of child pornography.

Halton Regional Police executed a search warrant at his residence and seized a Lenovo desktop computer containing child pornography files.

The sole issue at trial was whether Mr. Manganiello was in possession of these files.

The defence argued that multiple individuals had access to his unlocked computer and apartment, suggesting someone else could have downloaded the files.

The court found the accused's testimony to be vague, inconsistent, and unbelievable, rejecting his defence theory as implausible.

Based on the circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that Mr. Manganiello was in possession of the child pornography files and found him guilty.

The accused, Luke Eastman, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was 1133 days, exceeding the 18-month (547-day) presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court analyzed periods of delay attributable to the defence, including a change of counsel, failure to conduct pre-trials, and lack of proactive engagement in securing earlier trial dates or notifying the court of the s. 11(b) issue.

After deducting defence-attributable delay, the net delay was 536 days, which fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for Charter breaches (ss. 7, 8, 9, 12) related to an unlawful arrest and excessive force by police.

The Crown conceded the unlawful arrest due to a deficient Feeney warrant.

The court found that police used excessive force, violating the applicant's ss. 7 and 12 Charter rights, particularly regarding a "shield takedown" and physical contact.

However, the court determined that a stay of proceedings was not warranted as it was not one of the "clearest of cases" and alternative remedies like sentence reduction and financial restitution were available to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

Dr. Musson faced four counts of sexual assault and sexual touching of a person under 16.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his Section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found the total delay of 683 days exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 547.5 days.

The court found no defence-caused delay.

While an unexpected Crown leave of absence (11 days) was an exceptional circumstance, the significant delay (175 days) caused by the Crown's unlawful disclosure of youth records was not considered exceptional, as it was foreseeable and unavoidable, and the Crown did not act proactively to remedy it.

Consequently, the court found the delay unreasonable and stayed all four counts against Dr. Musson.

The offender pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life, uttering death threats, break and enter, and disobeying a court order, all committed against his separated spouse.

The court considered the offender's mental health issues and guilty pleas as mitigating factors, but weighed them against the highly aggravating domestic context and the planned nature of the arson.

The court imposed a global sentence of 77 months in custody, reduced to 23 months net after pre-sentence custody credit, followed by three years of probation.

The accused, N.G., was charged with aggravated assault and forcible confinement following an incident where his partner sustained a severe facial injury.

The trial focused on whether the accused intentionally bit the complainant's nose and whether he forcibly confined her.

The court found both the accused's and the complainant's evidence to be untrustworthy due to inconsistencies, lies, and intoxication.

Despite suspicions regarding the accused's conduct, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of both counts.

Patryk Myszka pleaded guilty to voyeurism (s. 162(1) Criminal Code) for secretly recording his common-law partner in their home for a sexual purpose.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of 5 months followed by 18 months probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the offence, breach of trust, and significant victim impact, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, and engagement in counselling.

The judge determined that a conditional discharge was not in the public interest due to the seriousness of the offence, but a conditional sentence was also not necessary.

A suspended sentence with 18 months probation and a forfeiture order for the recording devices was imposed, emphasizing denunciation, general deterrence, and the victim's protection.

The defendant, Ryan Patterson, charged with two counts of possession of child pornography, brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence (an iPod Touch, Samsung tablet, and Dell laptop) seized during the execution of a search warrant.

The court had previously ruled the warrant overbroad and invalidly obtained due to insufficient grounds in the Information to Obtain (ITO) to support the seizure of all listed devices.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court found the police conduct was careless but not flagrant, the impact on the accused's privacy was mitigated by discoverability (as grounds *could* have been established for a valid warrant), and society had a strong interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The defendant, Ryan Patterson, faced charges of possession of child pornography.

He brought a pre-trial application under s. 8 of the Charter to quash a search warrant for his residence.

The court found the warrant overbroad, as the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds to establish a credibly based probability that a wide range of computer systems and storage devices, beyond a smartphone, would contain evidence of the offence.

The ITO failed to explain how a smartphone-based KIK upload would lead to evidence on other devices.

Consequently, the warrant was quashed due to a violation of the defendant's Section 8 Charter rights.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and dangerous driving causing death following a motor vehicle collision.

This pre-trial motion addressed the admissibility of evidence obtained during the police investigation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including unlawful detention without rights advisement, compelled statements in violation of section 7 rights, unlawful arrest and breath demand, unlawful vehicle seizure without reasonable grounds, and unlawful seizure of blood samples and airbag data.

The court determined that the investigation was fundamentally flawed from its inception, with police taking investigative shortcuts that resulted in evidence being unlawfully obtained.

The court found that evidence obtained in violation of the Charter could not be relied upon to lawfully seize other evidence, rendering subsequent warranted seizures unlawful as well.

The accused brought pretrial applications alleging violations of his rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the section 10 breaches, resulting in the exclusion of the accused's statements to police.

On the section 8 application, the accused argued that police unlawfully entered and searched his motel room without a warrant, leading to the discovery of a sawed-off shotgun.

The court found that the accused had provided valid implied consent for the police to enter the room to investigate a reported gunshot and broken window.

The section 8 application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography between August 26 and October 19, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence of imprisonment and imposed a custodial sentence of seven months (less pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the accused had mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, and strong family support, the serious nature of the offence—involving over 7,900 images and 64 videos depicting young children in explicit sexual acts—required denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance for ten years, a ten-year section 161 order restricting contact with children and internet use, a five-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized computers.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of possession of child pornography, two counts of sexual interference, and two counts of making child pornography.

The Crown proceeded by indictment on all charges.

The sentencing court imposed a global sentence of five years and three months imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court found that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives given the serious nature of the offences involving the sexual abuse and exploitation of young children.

The defendant had abused the trust of close friends by sexually abusing their children and recording the abuse.

The court also imposed ancillary orders including a lifetime sex offender registration requirement, a lifetime prohibition on contact with children under 16, and restrictions on Internet use.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts of luring, one count of voyeurism, and one count of possession of child pornography involving six victims aged 12-14 years.

The Crown sought one year imprisonment followed by three years probation, while defence counsel sought six months imprisonment followed by one year probation.

The court imposed six months imprisonment (less pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years probation, finding that while the offences were serious and involved vulnerable young victims, significant mitigating factors were present including the accused's youth, guilty plea, lack of prior record, strong rehabilitation potential, and the absence of certain aggravating factors such as face-to-face contact or substantial child pornography collections.

The court declined to make a section 161 order, instead incorporating protective conditions within the probation order.

The accused pleaded guilty to making visual recordings of three female employees for a sexual purpose by placing a recording device under their dresses while at their place of employment between May 29, 2015 and September 16, 2015, contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily with the accused's consent.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with probation for three years, finding that while the offence was serious and involved a breach of trust as a senior vice-president, the accused's lack of criminal record, guilty plea, psychiatric assessment indicating low risk of reoffence, and collateral consequences warranted this disposition rather than a custodial sentence.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to the complainant on October 5, 2016 in Oakville.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issues were whether the contact was intentional or accidental, and whether the accused was acting in lawful defence of his son.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to make physical contact with either the complainant or a third party.

The accused was acquitted.

The court also addressed the defence of third party and found it would not have applied on the facts, as the situation did not constitute a threat of force and any intervention was unreasonable.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after the complainant's neck was slashed with a knife at a party.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony from an intoxicated witness and DNA evidence linking the accused to the knife handle and the complainant to the blade.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as improbable and found the DNA evidence compelling corroboration of the eyewitness account.

The court also ruled that the expert DNA evidence was admissible despite the technologists who performed the tests not being called to testify.

The accused was found guilty.