Hubert Gonzalez

The offender was convicted after trial of assaulting his son and daughter by repeatedly slapping them on the head for disciplinary reasons, and of assaulting his wife by cutting her neck with a potato peeler.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court found that a discharge or conditional sentence would be contrary to the public interest given the multiple victims, the breach of trust, and the serious nature of the violence in the family home.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 120 days in jail followed by 18 months of probation.

The self-represented accused, charged with first-degree murder, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging that he could not receive a fair trial.

He claimed that the judges who dismissed his previous applications exhibited bias and were part of a widespread conspiracy against him.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack on the prior rulings and that the accused failed to provide any cogent evidence to rebut the presumption of judicial integrity or substantiate his claims of bias and conspiracy.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of robbery committed over a short period.

The Crown sought a 10-year sentence and a 10-year Long-Term Offender (LTO) designation.

The offender has a lengthy criminal record, including sexual offences, and suffers from schizophrenia and substance use disorder.

The court found the offender poses a substantial risk of reoffending but that there is a reasonable possibility of eventual control in the community with strict supervision.

The court imposed a total sentence of 7 years and 2 months, reduced to 6 months after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody in harsh conditions, followed by a 7-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

This decision addresses the sexual assault allegations against Trung Pham, who was accused of non-consensual sexual touching during a body hair removal service at his hair salon.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of the complainant J.N. and the accused, focusing on the issue of consent.

While the complainant testified to unwanted touching, the court found reasonable doubt regarding consent due to inconsistencies and the complainant’s conduct, including leaving a tip.

The accused’s denial was not believed, but the Crown failed to prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in dismissal of the charge.

The decision addresses a constitutional challenge to section 16(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) regarding the search of digital devices at the border.

The court finds that the provision is unconstitutional as it permits searches of digital devices without any threshold, and declares it null and void as against the applicant, Kerwin Sonny.

However, the court declines to exclude the evidence obtained from the search, applying the Grant analysis and finding that the state conduct was not serious, the impact on the applicant was substantial, but society’s interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

The decision also clarifies the scope of standing for Charter challenges and the limits of remedies for third-party Charter violations.

The Crown brought an application at the outset of a jury trial for sexual assault to adduce uncharged discreditable conduct of the respondent.

The court ruled on the admissibility of various categories of evidence, including verbal and emotional abuse, shoving, and threats, balancing their probative value against potential prejudice.

The court admitted most of the proposed evidence, with some exclusions for hearsay or excessive prejudice, and provided a limiting instruction for the jury.

The accused, Sajeeth Vijayakumaran, faced a six-count indictment for firearm possession and threatening bodily harm.

The court assessed the credibility of the main complainant, noting inconsistencies and potential bias due to her own outstanding criminal charges.

While the complainant's testimony regarding the threats was deemed uncorroborated and insufficient for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, her testimony about the accused's handgun and a unique lockbox was strongly corroborated by police findings during a search.

The court found the accused had constructive possession of the firearm and ammunition, having hidden them after an argument.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the threatening charges but found guilty of the three firearm possession offences.

This decision addresses an application for directions by the accused (B.W.) in a criminal proceeding.

The applicant sought a ruling on whether certain emails in his possession were "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code and permission to use them for cross-examination of the complainant.

The court conducted an in camera review, classifying some emails as records due to their intimate and highly personal nature (e.g., marital difficulties, financial status) and others as not (mundane exchanges).

The application to use the emails deemed "records" was dismissed due to the applicant's non-compliance with procedural requirements, including late service and failure to provide detailed particulars.

The application to use the emails deemed "not records" was granted, subject to a potential s. 276 application for two specific emails and general rules of evidence.

The court also allowed the applicant to challenge the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct evidence, despite an earlier indication of no objection, emphasizing the right to a fair trial.

This criminal trial concerned four counts of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation against the accused, R.T.L., involving the complainant, A., his former stepdaughter.

The alleged offences occurred between 2004 and 2007, when the complainant was between 13 and 16 years old.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility based on alleged contradictions, generalities, a history of lying (due to prior non-disclosure to authorities), and a motive to lie.

The court meticulously analyzed each defence submission, finding the complainant's explanations for non-disclosure and inconsistencies credible given her age, dependence, and the manipulative nature of the relationship.

The accused, Ricardo Charleston, brought an application to exclude evidence, including statements made to police and observations of the complainant's injuries, alleging violations of his Charter rights (sections 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2)) and involuntariness of statements.

The court found that police failed to inform Mr. Charleston of his right to counsel and the reason for his detention at multiple points, and conducted a warrantless search of his residence that was not justified by exigent circumstances due to delays and available alternatives.

Consequently, all statements made by Mr. Charleston after he was detained (10:38 pm) and the police observations of the complainant's injuries from the warrantless search were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, statements made before his detention (before 9:07 pm) were found voluntary and admissible, and the complainant remains able to testify about her own injuries.

The four applicant defendants, charged with multiple residential break and enters, brought pre-trial Charter applications alleging violations of their rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

They challenged the lawfulness of their arrests, the subsequent searches, the promptness and language of their arrest notifications, and the implementation of their right to counsel.

One applicant also alleged a s. 8 breach regarding video surveillance in his holding cell.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that police had reasonable grounds for the arrests and that the searches were lawful.

While the court found a s. 10(b) implementation breach for two applicants due to unexplained delays in contacting counsel, it declined to exclude the seized clothing under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Three accused were tried for various drug-related offences following a controlled delivery of a package containing cocaine imported from Suriname.

The package was intercepted by the CBSA and picked up by Williams using fake identification.

Williams transferred the package to Allen, who fled from police.

Nwankwo was later arrested reaching into the trunk of Allen's car where the package was stored.

The court found Williams not guilty on all counts, as the Crown failed to prove he knew the package contained cocaine.

Nwankwo was found guilty of conspiracy to possess cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Allen was found guilty of conspiracy to import, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiracy to possess, but not guilty of a separate possession charge relating to cocaine found in his residence.

Sentencing of two co-accused following a judge-alone trial.

The first accused, a repeat offender with a lengthy record, was convicted of multiple firearms offences, assault with a weapon, drug trafficking, and driving offences.

After applying the Kienapple rule to stay several duplicative counts, the court sentenced him to a total of 10 years in custody.

The second accused, who had a limited record and demonstrated significant rehabilitation, was convicted of being an occupant in a vehicle with a firearm and possession of cocaine.

The court sentenced the second accused to an 18-month conditional sentence.

The accused faced multiple firearms, driving, and drug charges arising from two incidents in August 2019.

In the first incident, one accused threatened his ex-girlfriend with a handgun.

In the second, both accused were found in a vehicle and residence where a loaded handgun and cocaine were seized.

At trial, two key Crown witnesses recanted their prior statements to police, prompting the Crown to successfully apply under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine them.

The court found the first accused guilty of multiple firearms offences, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, driving while prohibited, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The second accused was found guilty of occupying a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm and simple possession of cocaine.

The accused was charged with sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and sexual interference relating to two young sisters.

The court found that the accused, who was the mother's new boyfriend, was not in a position of trust or authority over the 17-year-old complainant.

Regarding the 13-year-old complainant, who had an intellectual disability, the court found her evidence unreliable due to significant inconsistencies.

The court also found that an ambiguous text message sent by the accused did not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicants, charged with robbery, kidnapping, and fraud, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 31 months, well above the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued that the defence was responsible for significant portions of the delay due to inaction in pursuing outstanding disclosure.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the Crown failed to fulfill its constitutional disclosure obligations in a timely manner and offered no explanation for the delay.

The applications were granted and all charges were stayed.

Gianluca Salvati was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking offences (cocaine, fentanyl, crack cocaine), possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of recognizance following a judge-alone trial.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his extensive criminal record, the significant quantity of drugs (including fentanyl with a street value up to $20,600), and his limited potential for rehabilitation.

Mitigating factors were minimal.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the defence sought five years.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for lockdowns and COVID-19 conditions.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit three accused to stand trial for first degree murder in relation to a stabbing at an after-hours club.

The Crown advanced two routes to first degree murder: planning and deliberation, and constructive first degree murder during an unlawful confinement.

The court reviewed the evidence, including witness testimony and surveillance video, and found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could convict each of the accused of first degree murder under both theories.

All three accused were ordered to stand trial for first degree murder.

The accused was charged with motor vehicle offenses arising from a police chase and drug-related offenses following the execution of a search warrant.

The court acquitted the accused of the motor vehicle charges, finding the fleeting eyewitness identification of the driver unreliable.

However, the court convicted the accused of possession of cocaine, crack cocaine, and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, as circumstantial evidence established he had placed the drugs in plain view in a bathroom immediately prior to his arrest.

The court also admitted a photocopy of a recognizance under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, convicting the accused of breaching his release conditions.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his application to quash his committal for trial on charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The charges arose from an undercover police operation where pre-marked buy money was used, and a subsequent search warrant executed at the appellant's residence yielded cocaine and drug paraphernalia.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that a properly instructed jury acting reasonably could return guilty verdicts based on the evidence.