Jacqueline An

The Crown sought a preservation order under the Civil Remedies Act for currency previously seized by police.

The respondent argued the motion was an impermissible collateral attack on a prior Disposition Order under s. 490 of the Criminal Code that had ordered the funds returned to him.

The court rejected this argument, finding that an order under s. 490 only establishes the right to regain property after a criminal investigation and does not preclude civil forfeiture proceedings.

The preservation order was granted.

The applicant sought disclosure of a drug recognition expert's (DRE) rolling log, which documents all drug recognition evaluations conducted by the DRE.

The Crown opposed disclosure, arguing that rolling logs are clearly irrelevant and that disclosure is prohibited by section 320.36 of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the rolling log was clearly irrelevant because the DRE's opinion was corroborated by toxicological analysis.

The court also held that section 320.36 does not prohibit disclosure of rolling logs, but found disclosure unnecessary in this case due to the corroboration.

Following convictions for lottery fraud, the Crown sought restitution, forfeiture, and fines in lieu of forfeiture against the accused.

The court ordered restitution of $12.5 million jointly and severally against the two primary offenders, declining to add interest.

The court also ordered forfeiture of approximately $7.5 million in seized funds, after returning specific amounts to innocent third parties.

Finally, the court imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture of $2.3 million each on the two primary offenders, with a six-year term of imprisonment in default of payment.

This decision addresses a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum terms of imprisonment in default of payment of fines in lieu of forfeiture under s.462.37(4) of the Criminal Code.

The applicants, previously convicted of fraud, argued that these provisions violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mandatory minimum terms were not grossly disproportionate under s.12, considering the legislative purpose of disgorging ill-gotten gains and the availability of other Criminal Code provisions allowing for flexibility (e.g., time to pay, proportionate reduction for partial payment, inability to pay as a reasonable excuse).

The court also found no violation of s.7, as offenders have opportunities to make submissions at various stages of the process.

The accused were charged with multiple offences relating to the theft and fraudulent claiming of a $12.5 million winning Super 7 lottery ticket.

The Crown alleged that a convenience store clerk stole the winning free play ticket from a customer and subsequently had his daughter claim the prize.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including lottery terminal data, cellphone records, and banking records, the court found the father guilty of theft, fraud, and possession of stolen property.

The daughter was found guilty of fraud and possession of stolen property.

The son was found guilty of stealing other lottery tickets but acquitted of the charges relating to the $12.5 million ticket.

All accused were acquitted of money laundering.

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was approximately 79 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown conceded the delay but argued that significant portions were attributable to defence waiver or conduct, and that exceptional circumstances, including case complexity and transitional considerations, justified the remaining delay.

The court found that defence delay (waiver and conduct) accounted for 1017 days for Jun-Chul Chung and 938 days for Kathleen Chung.

Additionally, 347 days of delay were attributed to case complexity (voluminous disclosure, multiple co-accused, interpreter requirements, and time for submissions).

Considering these factors and the transitional exceptional circumstances for pre-Jordan cases, including the seriousness of the offences and institutional delay, the court concluded that the delay was justified.

The applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal for uttering a death threat under s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence regarding the accused’s mens rea.

The trial judge had accepted that the words were spoken but concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended the threat to be taken seriously or to intimidate the correctional officer.

On appeal, the court held that acquittals grounded in the presumption of innocence and the Crown’s failure to meet the burden of proof are not findings of fact but conclusions based on the standard of proof.

Such determinations are generally not amenable to appellate intervention absent legal error or palpable and overriding error.

Finding no misapprehension of evidence or other reviewable error, the appeal was dismissed.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision in which the Crown sought committal on seven counts arising from the theft of lottery tickets at a convenience store and the subsequent fraudulent claim of a $12.5 million lottery prize.

The accused were charged with theft of lottery tickets, possession of stolen property, fraud against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, possession of proceeds of crime, and money laundering.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence derived from lottery transaction records showing a pattern of "split ticket" thefts where free play tickets generated from original tickets were validated at different locations and times.

The defence argued the evidence was speculative and that alternative explanations existed.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on all seven counts.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit two accused for trial on charges arising from a hostage-taking incident at the Toronto East Detention Centre.

Stanton David was charged with three counts of hostage taking, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

Alpha Water was charged with three counts of hostage taking and one count of placing a trap with intent to cause bodily harm.

The Crown also sought committal on two counts of mischief for Water.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused for trial on the hostage-taking charges and committed Water on the mischief charges, but discharged Water on the trap charge due to insufficient evidence of intent to cause bodily harm.