Hedley Thompson

The applicant, Susan Zreik, brought two applications: one seeking extraordinary remedies (mandamus and certiorari) and declaratory relief against the SIU Director, and another raising constitutional issues involving the Attorney General of Canada.

This endorsement addresses preliminary jurisdictional arguments, with the Attorney General of Ontario and the SIU Director contending the Divisional Court is the proper forum for Application #1, and the Attorney General of Canada disputing its status as a party in Application #2.

The court adjourned the jurisdictional arguments to a case management meeting, directing the parties to file supplementary materials addressing compliance with criminal rules for extraordinary remedies and jurisdictional challenges for constitutional issues.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery of a convenience store.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 15-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The court noted the offender's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and the role of substance abuse, balancing these against the serious nature of the offence.

The accused brought an application seeking production of third party records from a child protection agency in a prosecution alleging sexual offences against a child.

After ordering the records produced to the court for review at the first stage of the application, the judge conducted an in camera examination and issued a judicial summary to assist counsel in making submissions at the second stage.

The court identified certain sub-files that potentially contained information about other allegations made by the complainant against different individuals.

However, the records did not demonstrate any recantation or provide conclusive evidence that prior allegations were false.

The court indicated that only limited portions of the records might be susceptible to disclosure to the defence pending further submissions.

The accused applied under ss. 278.1–278.5 of the Criminal Code for production of third‑party records held by a child protection agency relating to prior allegations of sexual touching made by the complainant against other individuals.

The complainant, her family members, and the agency opposed the application.

The court found an evidentiary foundation indicating that prior sexual allegations may have been made while the complainant was in agency care and that related records likely existed.

Balancing the accused’s right to make full answer and defence against the complainant’s privacy and equality interests, the court held that the records were likely relevant to credibility and trial fairness.

The application was granted in part at the first stage, ordering production of certain records to the court for review while excluding records lacking sufficient evidentiary connection.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 10(b) rights (right to retain and instruct counsel without delay).

The court found that the accused's right to counsel was violated when the officer failed to wait a reasonable period of time for the accused's counsel of choice to return a call before proceeding with the breathalyzer test.

The court excluded the breath test evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana under 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and possession of break-in instruments contrary to section 351(1) of the Criminal Code.

Police discovered 211 grams of marijuana in the accused's vehicle, along with digital scales, cash, and break-in tools.

The accused held a valid medical marijuana authorization permitting possession of 45 grams only.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including text messages, packaging of marijuana in multiple baggies, and expert testimony regarding street jargon and drug pricing.

The accused testified that all marijuana was for personal use due to chronic pain management.

The court found the accused guilty of trafficking but acquitted him of the break-in tools charge.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood, contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on expert evidence from the Centre of Forensic Sciences establishing a projected blood alcohol concentration of 187 to 262 mg per 100 mL at the time of the incident.

The defence challenged the continuity of the blood samples from collection at the hospital through seizure by police to analysis by the CFS.

The court found sufficient continuity through cross-referencing of the accused's name, OPP incident number, and vial identification across all stages of handling.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit.

The trial judge had excluded evidence derived from hospital records after finding that a physician’s disclosure to police of an odour of alcohol breached the accused’s s. 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure.

The appeal court held that the accused did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the smell of alcohol on her breath observed by a physician in a hospital emergency room.

The disclosure did not engage s. 8 protection, and even if it had, the evidence would have been admissible under the s. 24(2) analysis in R. v. Grant.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with unlawfully being in a dwelling house contrary to section 349(1) of the Criminal Code and sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The case turned on the identification evidence of two eyewitnesses: the complainant, who was awoken while being touched inappropriately, and her mother, who observed the intruder leaving the trailer.

The court found the identification evidence to be unreliable and fraught with contradictions, including inconsistencies between the witnesses' statements to police and their trial testimony, poor lighting conditions, brief observation opportunities, and the complainant's intoxicated state.

The court also noted the presence of an alternative suspect, Ted MacQuarrie, who had assisted the complainant earlier that evening and bore a physical resemblance to the accused.

The charges were dismissed.