Hubert Gonzalez

The accused sought a bail review after a detention order was cancelled by consent.

The application was heard via teleconference during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered new evidence, including proposed sureties and electronic monitoring, as material changes in circumstances, allowing for a de novo hearing.

The court found no primary ground concerns (flight risk).

However, on secondary grounds, the court found a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit further offences or interfere with justice, given an extensive criminal record, history of non-compliance with court orders, and the serious nature of the current drug and firearm charges.

On tertiary grounds, considering the strength of the prosecution's case, the objective gravity of the offences, and the accused's personal circumstances, the court concluded that continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The impact of the pandemic on correctional facilities and trial delays was considered but not found to be a sufficient basis for release in this specific case.

The application for bail review was denied.

The Crown brought an application pursuant to section 601(2) of the Criminal Code to amend counts 1 and 2 at the close of its case.

Count 1 sought to replace the named victim (Special Constable Condie) with a group (Carleton University security personnel) and to include both descriptions of the offence under section 264.1(1)(a) (threat to cause death or bodily harm).

Count 2 sought similar amendments, replacing Special Constable Larochelle with Carleton University security personnel and adding the complete wording of the offence.

The defence objected on grounds of timing and irreparable prejudice.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the timing was appropriate under the Criminal Code, that the defence had prior notice, and that no irreparable prejudice would result from the amendments.

The defendant, Ryan Shepherd, faced four drug trafficking charges and brought a motion to sever counts 3 and 4 from counts 1 and 2, and further to sever count 4 from count 3.

Counts 1 and 2 related to a March 17, 2017, cocaine trafficking allegation, while counts 3 and 4 related to a March 29, 2017, trafficking allegation and a March 30, 2017, possession for trafficking allegation.

Applying the "interests of justice" test under s. 591(3)(a) of the Criminal Code, the court found a rational basis for the defendant to testify on counts 3 and 4 but not on counts 1 and 2, given the differing strength and nature of the Crown's evidence for the two sets of charges.

Consequently, counts 3 and 4 were severed from counts 1 and 2.

However, the court denied the request to sever count 4 from count 3, finding an evidentiary overlap and no sound reason for further severance, as the defendant intended to testify on both.

The accused faced multiple charges relating to drug and firearms trafficking arising from a major police investigation involving wiretaps and surveillance.

The court found the primary target guilty of all charges based on overwhelming intercept and surveillance evidence.

Another accused was found guilty of purchasing a firearm and trafficking marijuana.

However, charges against two other accused were dismissed due to insufficient voice identification evidence and the legal principle that a mere purchaser in a bilateral transaction is not guilty of conspiracy.

The accused were charged with dangerous driving, mischief, and conspiracy arising from a large, organized motorcycle ride ('The Ride of the 6ix') that caused traffic stoppages and involved risky maneuvers on highways.

The court acquitted Mr. Lannon of all charges due to insufficient identification evidence.

Mr. Allaudin, identified as the organizer of the ride, was found guilty of mischief as a principal and party for coordinating the traffic stoppages.

However, he was acquitted of dangerous driving and conspiracy, as his own riding did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care, and the Crown failed to prove he had the requisite knowledge or intent to aid or abet the dangerous riding of others.

The accused was charged with public mischief and criminal harassment arising from her interactions with police regarding concerns about her son being abused by his father.

At the conclusion of the Crown's case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence on the essential elements of both offences.

Specifically, the Crown provided no clear evidence of the specific false allegation constituting the actus reus of mischief, no proof of falsity, and no evidence of the accused's knowledge that her allegations were false.

Regarding criminal harassment, the court found that the accused's lawful calls to police did not constitute prohibited conduct under section 264 of the Criminal Code, and that the accused's conduct did not cause the complainant to reasonably fear for his safety within the meaning of the statute.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

He drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic, causing a head-on collision with a 79-year-old victim who suffered catastrophic injuries including a shattered hip and femur, broken ribs, fractured shoulder and neck, and a brain injury.

The offender's blood alcohol concentration was approximately twice the legal limit.

The offender was a first-time offender with strong character references and demonstrated genuine remorse.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed 14 months custody, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing objectives despite significant mitigating factors.

The defendants were charged with importing cocaine after a controlled delivery of a package from Colombia.

The package contained cocaine hidden inside metal grinding wheels.

One defendant accepted the package at his residence, while the other was observed driving nearby in apparent counter-surveillance.

The court found that while the circumstances were suspicious, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either defendant knew the package contained imported cocaine.

Both defendants were found not guilty.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug on September 26, 2016 in Burlington.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug, specifically cannabis.

The accused testified that he was not impaired.

The court found the accused guilty based on a constellation of objectively discernible facts including speeding, poor performance on drug recognition evaluation tests, bloodshot eyes, droopy eyelids, confusion regarding time and date, and toxicological evidence of cannabis and other drugs in his system.

The accused was charged with eight criminal offences arising from his attempt to purchase video games using fraudulent Visa gift cards at a shopping mall.

The Crown alleged fraudulent possession of credit card data, possession of credit cards obtained by commission of an offence in Canada, assault with intent to resist arrest, failure to comply with recognizance conditions, and fraud under $5,000.

The court found the accused guilty on counts relating to fraudulent possession of credit card data, failure to comply with recognizance conditions, and fraud, but acquitted on counts relating to possession of cards obtained by commission of an offence in Canada and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The court found the arrest was lawful but that the contact with the officer during the attempted flight was accidental rather than intentional assault.

The Crown charged the defendant with breaching a house arrest condition of his recognizance on December 24, 2013.

The defence brought a motion for a directed verdict challenging whether there was sufficient evidence of identity to pass the Shephard test.

Officer Perreault identified the defendant based on a mug shot and surveillance observations, but the Crown failed to establish an admissible evidentiary link between the defendant and the person named in the recognizance and Information.

The court found the Crown's case fatally flawed due to reliance on hearsay evidence regarding the defendant's identity and lack of admissible evidence connecting the defendant to the named person in the legal documents.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine discovered during a strip search following a traffic stop.

Police stopped a vehicle with mismatched licence plates and briefly questioned the passenger, who voluntarily provided identification that revealed he was bound by a probation order prohibiting association with persons with criminal records.

After learning the driver had a criminal record, police arrested the accused for breach of probation and discovered a hard object during a pat‑down search, leading to a strip search at the station that revealed cocaine.

The court held that the passenger was not detained during the initial roadside questioning and that brief requests for identification and relationship to the driver did not constitute detention or an unreasonable search under ss. 8 or 9 of the Charter.

The arrest and subsequent strip search were lawful and Charter‑compliant.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.