Jaime L. Stephenson

In a prosecution for possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, the Crown sought to qualify a police officer to give expert opinion evidence on drug trafficking practices.

Applying the Mohan threshold criteria and the White Burgess gatekeeper analysis, the court held that expert evidence concerning cocaine and fentanyl trafficking practices, including pricing, quantity, packaging, user consumption habits, purchase patterns, conduct, and indicia of trafficking, was logically relevant, necessary, and sufficiently reliable.

The officer's training and experience holistically established specialized knowledge outside the court's ordinary experience, and there was no realistic concern about impartiality.

However, the Crown failed to establish the relevance of proposed oxycodone evidence after staying the oxycodone charge.

The officer was therefore qualified only in relation to cocaine and fentanyl.

The accused was charged with 27 offences arising from a shooting incident on the Six Nations Reserve on May 6, 2024.

The Crown alleged the accused fired a firearm at a van fleeing his residence after a physical altercation with three women.

The Crown conceded insufficient evidence for attempted murder charges.

The court found the accused guilty of five counts of pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm, uttering a threat, five counts of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, breaching probation orders, breaching a firearms prohibition order, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and driving while prohibited.

The court acquitted on two assault charges and two firearm licensing charges, finding the weapon met the definition of firearm under section 2 of the Criminal Code but not the enhanced definition under section 84(3)(d).

Donald Earhart, convicted of first-degree murder, applied under s. 745.61 of the Criminal Code for a reduction in his parole ineligibility period.

The court conducted a judicial screening to determine if there was a "reasonable prospect" that a jury would unanimously reduce the period, considering factors such as his character, conduct in prison, the nature of the offence, victim impact statements, and his Indigenous background (Gladue factors).

The court found that the applicant had established a reasonable prospect, particularly given his Indigenous status, mental health conditions, and extended periods in segregation.

The application was granted, and a jury will be empanelled.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, robbery with a firearm, and other offences after shooting a victim and stealing multiple vehicles.

Prior to sentencing, the offender applied for bail, proposing a residential surety and electronic monitoring.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the offender's history of fleeing, untreated addiction, and the severity of the offences justified detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The defendant, Benjamin Boucher, brought an application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his home and outbuildings, arguing that the search warrants lacked reasonable grounds and violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

Police had found cocaine, trafficking indicators, and a prohibited weapon.

The court found that the information to obtain the warrant for Boucher's residence was insufficient, particularly when compared to the strong grounds for a co-accused's warrant, leading to a s. 8 Charter breach.

The observations leading to the outbuilding warrant were deemed tainted by the invalid house warrant.

Applying the s. 24(2) Charter analysis, the court determined the breach was serious, the impact on Boucher's privacy substantial (as it was his home), and that the public interest in a trial on the merits did not outweigh these factors.

Consequently, the evidence seized from the home and garage was excluded, resulting in no evidence upon which to argue conviction for the drug charges.

Boucher was placed on a peace bond for the prohibited weapon.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Christopher Scaglione for assault causing bodily harm and breach of a release order.

The court rejected the defence's arguments of provocation and consensual fight, finding the assault to be unprovoked, premeditated, and disproportionate, with the accused continuing to assault the victim after he was unconscious.

Aggravating factors included the accused's extensive criminal record for violent offences and administration of justice offences.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea and a gap in his criminal record.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 30 months.

C.P. pleaded guilty to criminal harassment, extortion, and distributing an intimate image without consent, stemming from a scheme to sexually harass and extort a 17-year-old girl.

The offender threatened to release intimate images, then distributed one, and later made further demands with threats including the victim's home address.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of 15-18 months, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized the principles of general deterrence and denunciation due to the grave and sustained nature of the offences, despite the offender being a first-time youthful offender with rehabilitative potential.

A total sentence of twelve months in jail was imposed, with concurrent sentences for the other counts, along with probation and a weapons prohibition.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and possession of cannabis for distribution, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing strong circumstantial evidence of the accused's involvement in a planned execution, an antisocial lifestyle, and a risk to public safety.

The court considered the accused's health condition (asthma) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic but found that the proposed release plan with sureties was insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of re-offending and endangering the community.

The application for bail was dismissed.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for allegedly punching the complainant outside a Tim Hortons in Brantford, causing a non-displaced cranial fracture and requiring hospitalization.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the assailant.

While surveillance video from inside the establishment clearly showed the accused present, the outside video quality was poor and the Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence and inferences from clothing descriptions.

The court found that the complainant's identification was unreliable due to intoxication and head injury, and a witness's evidence was contradicted by the video.

The court concluded that while the accused was the most likely perpetrator, the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt based on the poor quality outside video and generic clothing descriptors.

The accused was involved in a lengthy police pursuit while driving stolen vehicles, resulting in collisions with several police cruisers.

He pled guilty to numerous offences including dangerous driving, theft, and break and enter.

For the remaining charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon against the officers, the central issue was intent.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court believed the accused's testimony that he was merely trying to escape and did not intentionally target the officers or their vehicles, resulting in acquittals on the contested charges.

This decision addresses multiple pre-trial motions in a large-scale drug trafficking prosecution, focusing on Charter violations related to search and seizure (s.8) and the right to counsel (s.10), as well as the voluntariness of an utterance.

The court found the initial warrantless search for cocaine unconstitutional and excluded the evidence.

The initial search warrant for the Warwick premises was quashed, but other evidence seized under it was admitted.

Covert camera evidence was admitted despite an unlawful installation, but references to it were excised from subsequent Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

Tracking warrants and general warrants for other properties were largely upheld after excising unconstitutionally obtained information.

An accused's utterance was found voluntary and admitted, despite a s.10 Charter violation, as the impact on Charter rights was deemed slight and exclusion would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

In a pre-trial motion for a murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce hearsay evidence from the deceased victim's wife regarding a 2013 robbery allegedly committed by the accused.

The court applied the principled exception to hearsay and the test for prior discreditable conduct.

The court found the identification evidence for the 2013 robbery was frail, failing to meet threshold reliability.

Furthermore, the prejudicial effect of admitting the unproven prior robbery and a related newspaper article outweighed its probative value.

The Crown's motion to introduce the evidence was denied.

The applicants, Marco Maone and Carlo Fazzari, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in their criminal trial.

The court applied the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court cases, as established in R. v. Jordan, finding the 29-month delay to the anticipated trial completion to be reasonable.

The court rejected the argument that a preferred indictment should trigger an 18-month ceiling.

It also found that Maone failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite proceedings, while Fazzari, despite some efforts, did not establish that the case took 'markedly longer' than it should have, considering the complexity of the multi-accused drug trafficking investigation.

The applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, and sought exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The central issue was whether the police provided the accused with a reasonable opportunity to consult with his counsel of choice.

The court found that the officer told the accused the breath samples would be taken regardless of whether his chosen lawyer called back, and that the accused had no choice but to speak to duty counsel.

The court found this constituted a serious breach of section 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the blood-alcohol readings, resulting in an acquittal.

The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario held a pre-hearing teleconference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of Zucca Bar Inc. The Board ordered mutual disclosure of witness lists, 'will say' statements, and other required materials ten days prior to the scheduled hearing.