H. Gluzman

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon after stabbing his childhood friend during an altercation at his home.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the victim attacked him with a knife.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent, finding that he had a motive based on jealousy and that his after-the-fact conduct of retrieving his passport indicated guilt.

The court accepted the victim's testimony that the attack was unprovoked.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after his previous bails were revoked and he was detained on the secondary ground.

The applicant proposed a novel release plan involving a senior probation officer volunteering to manage his drug treatment and supervise his bail.

The court found that the new treatment plan, combined with the applicant's significant accumulated pre-trial custody, constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court ordered the applicant's release on strict house arrest with conditions tied directly to his drug treatment.

The appellant was convicted of driving with excess blood alcohol after being detained in a police cruiser for a suspected hit and run.

The trial judge found breaches of sections 9 and 10(b) of the Charter but declined to exclude the breath test results under section 24(2).

On appeal, the Summary Conviction Appeal Court found the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a proper Grant analysis.

Conducting the analysis anew, the court found the police conduct in detaining the appellant for nearly 30 minutes without providing the right to counsel was serious and significantly impacted his Charter-protected interests.

The appeal was allowed, the breath results were excluded, and an acquittal was entered.

The appellant appealed her conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle, arguing the trial judge erred in failing to exclude evidence obtained in violation of s. 10(a) of the Charter.

The trial judge had found a s. 10(a) breach because the officer delayed advising the appellant of the reasons for her detention for a few minutes for safety reasons, but declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court upheld the trial judge's application of the Grant framework, agreeing that the officers' observations of impairment were inevitably discoverable and not the result of compelled participation in a sobriety test.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

The court conducted a breach hearing under s. 742.6 of the Criminal Code to determine whether the offender violated the house arrest condition of a conditional sentence imposed for firearms offences.

The offender claimed she breached the condition due to duress, alleging she had been threatened and forced into prostitution.

The court rejected the explanation, finding the testimony unreliable and noting multiple safe opportunities to escape or seek assistance.

The court concluded the offender failed to establish a reasonable excuse on a balance of probabilities.

The conditional sentence was suspended and a custodial term imposed for part of the remaining sentence.

The offender was convicted after trial of possessing $110,000 USD in counterfeit currency imported into Canada.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9 to 12 months, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court reviewed the purposes and principles of sentencing under ss. 718–718.2 of the Criminal Code and the statutory framework for conditional sentences under s. 742.1.

Considering the offender’s lack of prior record, significant rehabilitation efforts, addiction history, mental health issues, and strong community support, the court concluded that community safety would not be endangered by a conditional sentence.

A 15‑month conditional sentence with strict house arrest, abstinence, counselling, and supervision conditions was imposed along with forfeiture of the counterfeit currency.

The accused was charged with procuring a complainant to become a prostitute and with exercising control, direction, or influence over her movements for the purpose of gain contrary to s. 212(1)(d) and s. 212(1)(h) of the Criminal Code.

The evidence showed the complainant worked as a stripper performing lap dances and later engaged in additional sexual services for payment while regularly consulting with the accused, who assisted her in obtaining work, set prices for sexual services, transported her, remained in frequent contact, and received large portions of her earnings.

The court found significant credibility concerns in the complainant’s testimony and concluded there was a reasonable doubt that the accused had persuaded or induced her to become a prostitute.

However, the court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused exercised direction and influence that aided her prostitution for the purpose of financial gain.

The accused was acquitted of procuring but convicted of exercising control or influence for gain.

During a criminal trial for procuring a person to become a prostitute and exercising control or influence over a person engaged in prostitution, the accused brought an application for directed verdicts of acquittal at the close of the Crown’s case.

The court applied the test of whether there was any admissible evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could convict if the evidence were believed.

The evidence included testimony that the accused encouraged the complainant to work as a stripper, instructed her in lap dancing, advised her regarding sexual services for payment, transported her, controlled the proceeds of her earnings, and directed aspects of her work.

The court held that lap dancing involving sexual contact for payment could constitute prostitution and that the evidence could support findings of procuring and exercising direction or influence for the purpose of gain.

The application for directed verdicts was dismissed.

The accused was charged with breach of recognizance, multiple counts of assault, and sexual assault arising from a turbulent domestic relationship.

The complainant alleged repeated physical assaults and non‑consensual sexual activity over a two‑year period.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence regarding physical violence, finding it corroborated by witness observations of injuries and admissions contained in the accused’s letters and statements to a friend.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the sexual assault allegation due to the timing of disclosure and credibility concerns.

The accused was convicted of breach of recognizance and several assault counts but acquitted of sexual assault.