James L. Miglin

The accused brought a Charter motion challenging a search warrant executed at his residence nearly two years after a robbery and firearm discharge offence.

The accused conceded reasonable grounds existed to believe he was the perpetrator but argued there were insufficient grounds to believe evidence would still be found at his residence.

He also argued that the inclusion of bad character evidence in the ITO was improper and that a subsequent cell phone warrant was overbroad.

The court dismissed the application, finding it reasonable to infer that clothing and cell phones would be retained over two years, that bad character evidence of similar robbery offences was relevant at the investigatory stage, and that any potential overbreadth in the cell phone warrant caused no prejudice as no evidence from the phone was tendered at trial.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm following a trial on a charge of attempted murder.

The Crown initially sought a dangerous offender designation but abandoned this application following the Court of Appeal decision in R. v. Hason, which raised concerns about the reliability of expert psychiatric evidence.

The court accepted a joint submission sentencing the accused to an additional three years in the penitentiary (for a total of 9.75 years) and imposed a long-term supervision order for eight years.

The sentence was imposed to allow the accused to access treatment while in custody and to protect the public given the accused's extensive history of violent offences.

The applicants, Dennis Singh and Justin Sandassie, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory life sentence without parole eligibility for 25 years for first degree murder under section 745(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the facts of the offence, the parties' positions, and the binding Supreme Court of Canada precedents.

The application was dismissed, with the court holding that the mandatory minimum sentence remains constitutionally valid and is not grossly disproportionate or overbroad under the Charter.

The court sentenced Anden Alexander, convicted by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, unauthorized possession of a firearm in a vehicle, and flight from a peace officer.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence and the offender, considered aggravating and mitigating factors, and canvassed the applicable sentencing principles and case law.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less 92 days, to be served in the community, followed by two years' probation, and made ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture, and a one-year driving prohibition.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed all trafficking and conspiracy charges against Arvin Esguerra Cruz, finding the Crown's case rested primarily on his presence at the scene of drug transactions without direct evidence of participation.

Despite surveillance and circumstantial evidence linking Cruz to the vicinity of two drug transactions on July 26 and September 5, 2023, the court held that mere presence and timing were insufficient to infer guilt beyond speculation.

The Crown failed to establish that Cruz aided, abetted, or conspired in the offences, and no evidence linked him to the drugs, communications, or planning.

The decision underscores the evidentiary threshold required to move beyond "mere presence" in drug trafficking prosecutions.

Jermaine Watson was sentenced following his conviction by a jury for kidnapping.

The court detailed the circumstances of the sophisticated, meticulously planned offence, where Watson acted as a principal lieutenant in the abduction and prolonged, inhumane confinement of the victim for ransom.

The decision considered aggravating factors such as the home invasion, high degree of planning, Watson's central role and greed, and the use of restraints.

Mitigating factors were minimal, though Watson's severe and deteriorating health was considered as a collateral consequence impacting the harshness of incarceration.

The court applied sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality, and granted pre-sentence custody credit.

Watson was sentenced to 15 years, less 4 years and 46 days of pre-sentence credit.

Richard Samuels and Tafari Minott pleaded guilty to manslaughter for the shooting death of Osman Bangura.

The Crown sought eight-year sentences, while defence counsel requested six years.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the use and disposal of illegal firearms and Samuels' youth record, and mitigating factors, including early guilty pleas, self-defence concerns (though disproportionate force was used), and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a six-year sentence on both offenders, with credit for time served, resulting in remaining sentences of approximately 2 years 9.5 months for Samuels and 3 years 8.5 months for Minott.

Both were also subject to a lifetime firearms prohibition and a mandatory DNA order.

The applicant, found guilty of human trafficking related offences, challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of two years for receiving a material benefit from trafficking a person under 18 years of age, contrary to s. 279.02(2) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the mandatory minimum violated sections 7 and 12 of the Charter, constituting cruel and unusual punishment and an arbitrary deprivation of liberty due to the unavailability of a conditional sentence.

The Crown argued the constitutional issues were unnecessary as the overall sentence would exceed the minimum.

The court found that the broad range of hypothetical situations captured by the offence, and the fact that similar mandatory minimums for human trafficking offences had been struck down, led to the conclusion that the provision contravened sections 7 and 12 of the Charter and could not be saved by section 1.

The mandatory minimum sentence was struck down.

Shamar Cole was found guilty by a jury of 19 counts related to drug possession and firearm offences, and subsequently six counts of possessing a firearm while prohibited.

The charges stemmed from his arrest where he discarded a backpack containing large quantities of various drugs (cocaine, fentanyl, crack, methamphetamine) and three loaded, prohibited handguns (two converted to automatic, all with overcapacity magazines) from a condominium balcony.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 17 years, while the Defence argued for 5 years, emphasizing the jury's verdict of simple possession rather than possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors, including the arsenal of weapons, the large quantity of drugs, discarding items in a public place, and the offender's significant criminal record with prior firearm prohibitions and a bail breach.

Mitigating factors included a difficult childhood and harsh pre-trial detention conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, with various counts running concurrently and consecutively, and applied pre-sentence custody credits, resulting in 6 years and 2 months remaining.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA, and forfeiture were also granted.

Damaine Sitladeen was found guilty by a jury of possession of a prohibited firearm, occupying a vehicle with a prohibited firearm, and possession of Fentanyl and Cocaine.

He was also found guilty of possession of a firearm while prohibited due to prior s. 109 orders.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record involving prior firearm offences and the dangerous combination of drugs and guns.

Mitigating factors included family support.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for firearm offences.

A global sentence of 7 years and 3.5 months was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 5 years and 2 months.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime s. 109 prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

The applicants, Nimo Ali and Carlington Graham, jointly charged with human trafficking and child pornography offences, brought applications under s. 276 of the Criminal Code for leave to cross-examine complainants on aspects of their prior involvement in the sex trade with an unconnected third party.

The Crown opposed.

The court allowed the applications in part, permitting cross-examination on specific inconsistencies and untruths related to the complainants' prior knowledge and involvement in the sex trade (e.g., taking photos for online ads, knowledge of Leo List), but prohibited questions that would invoke the "twin myths" (i.e., that prior sexual activity makes a complainant more likely to have consented or less worthy of belief).

The court emphasized that the cross-examination must be tightly controlled and accompanied by mid-trial and final jury instructions.

The applicant, Terrell Als, sought a stay of charges under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

The total time from arrest to the scheduled completion of trial was 1505 days, exceeding the 910-day presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing significant portions to defence delay (due to change of counsel and counsel's calendar unavailability) and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 court closures, Crown counsel's family emergency, and unforeseen judicial unavailability).

The court found that the Crown and court made reasonable efforts to mitigate delays.

Ultimately, the application was dismissed, as the net delay, after accounting for defence delay and exceptional circumstances, did not exceed the Jordan threshold.

This ruling addresses Crown applications in a human trafficking trial for two complainants, aged 15 and 16 at the time of the alleged offences, to testify from outside the courtroom.

The applications were brought under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, which permits such orders to facilitate a full and candid account or in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

The court considered the complainants' anxiety and fear, particularly one who experienced panic attacks during the preliminary hearing.

The court noted the lowered threshold for such orders following a 2015 amendment to the Criminal Code.

Both applications were granted, subject to technical transmission quality, with instructions to the jury not to draw adverse inferences from the use of testimonial aids.

The applicant, Damaine Sitladeen, faced firearm and drug charges and brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 9 to exclude evidence.

He alleged unlawful arrest due to racial bias, an overbroad search incident to arrest, and an unconstitutional strip search.

The court found no Charter violations, concluding that the arrest was based on reasonable grounds (missing license plate), the vehicle search was incidental to arrest and reasonable (including for identification and after drug discovery), and the strip search was justified and conducted reasonably.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences following a traffic stop and arrest.

The primary issue on appeal was whether the stop and arrest were tainted by racial profiling, which would render the firearm evidence inadmissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The trial judge found Charter breaches (ss. 8 and 9) due to an arrest without reasonable and probable grounds but admitted the evidence, concluding no racial profiling because he found the officers were not "lying" about their motivations.

The Court of Appeal (majority) held that the trial judge erred in applying the test for racial profiling by focusing on whether officers deliberately lied, failing to adequately consider unconscious bias.

A new trial was ordered.

The dissenting judge argued the trial judge correctly applied the law and considered all factors.

The defendant, charged with multiple firearm and domestic violence offenses, was in a reverse onus bail hearing.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the serious nature of the allegations, the defendant's criminal record including prior domestic violence convictions and breaches of release orders, and the discovery of a loaded firearm.

The proposed supervision plan by the defendant's mother and grandmother was deemed insufficient given the defendant's history of non-compliance and the severity of the charges.

The court found a substantial likelihood of the defendant committing further offenses and that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, despite COVID-19 concerns in custodial settings.

The defendant's application for bail was denied, and he was ordered detained.

Akwasi Edusei and Tavoy Brown were sentenced for convenience store robberies.

Edusei was convicted of two robberies, disguise with intent, and possession of stolen property.

Brown was convicted of possession of stolen property and breach of court orders.

The court considered Edusei's extensive criminal record, the vulnerability of convenience store victims, and masked robberies as aggravating factors, with youth as the sole mitigating factor.

Brown's sentence was based on a joint submission.

Edusei received a global sentence of four years, with credit for pretrial custody including enhanced credit for lockdown conditions.

Brown received a 90-day concurrent sentence, largely covered by pretrial custody.

The accused, Marvin Small, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, challenging his continued detention by a Justice of the Peace.

He argued for a material change in circumstances based on the proposed addition of electronic monitoring, a new surety (KN), an increased monetary pledge from his girlfriend (TT), and trial delays due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that neither TT nor KN were suitable sureties, rendering electronic monitoring ineffective.

The increased monetary pledge did not address the core concern of surety supervision.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 related delays were largely duplicative of arguments made at the initial bail hearing.

Consequently, the court found no material change in circumstances, dismissed the application, and maintained the accused's detention.