James Meloche

The defendants brought a motion to remove the current litigation guardian and appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) for the minor plaintiffs.

The current litigation guardian and her counsel failed to attend case conferences and comply with timetables, causing significant delays.

The court found that the current litigation guardian was unable to continue due to health issues and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The court ordered the removal of the current litigation guardian and appointed the OCL in her place, as no other suitable person was available.

The court also ordered the litigation guardian's former counsel to personally pay costs thrown away for a missed appearance.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused was arrested following a police investigation into fentanyl distribution in Eastern Ontario.

Police recovered 146 fentanyl patches, 350 oxycodone tablets, approximately $30,000 in cash, and drug trafficking paraphernalia from two residences.

The court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing the dangers of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and general deterrence in response to the opioid crisis.

The accused was charged with trafficking cocaine.

The court applied the co-actor's exception to the hearsay rule (Carter test) to admit intercepted communications.

The court found a common unlawful design to traffic cocaine and that the accused was a participant based on direct and inferential evidence, including surveillance and phone communications.

The accused's arguments regarding the necessity of calling a co-actor witness and the credibility of a police agent were rejected.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts.

The applicant sought an order of certiorari to quash her committal to stand trial on charges of possession of cannabis marihuana for the purpose of trafficking and producing marihuana.

The application argued that the preliminary inquiry justice exceeded jurisdiction by committing based on insufficient evidence regarding control over the premises/marihuana and participation in cultivation, amounting to speculation.

The court reviewed the standard for certiorari, which limits intervention to jurisdictional error, and the "scintilla of evidence" test for committal.

It found that the preliminary inquiry judge's inferences were reasonable, supported by circumstantial evidence connecting the applicant to the large-scale grow operation, including her presence, personal belongings, and car keys found within the facility.

The court dismissed the application, affirming that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the applicant's involvement.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total time from the charges to the anticipated end of the second trial was 53 months.

The court deducted 10 months of defence delay and 11 months of delay caused by a mistrial, which was deemed an exceptional circumstance.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant sought a stay of charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to trial was approximately 36 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court deducted one month for defence-caused delay, resulting in a net delay of 35 months.

While the case was not complex enough to justify delay under the post-Jordan framework, the court found that the delay could be justified by exceptional transitional circumstances, as the bulk of the delay occurred before Jordan was released, and the parties' conduct was assessed against pre-Jordan expectations under R. v. Morin.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for drug trafficking charges.

The applicant argued that the Justice of the Peace erred in law and that the proposed use of electronic monitoring constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found that while the Justice of the Peace made some errors of law warranting intervention, the electronic monitoring proposal did not amount to a material change.

Upon conducting a fresh review, the court concluded the applicant failed to meet the reverse onus, finding detention was necessary on all three grounds due to flight risk, likelihood of reoffending, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The offender pleaded guilty to producing cannabis under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to theft of electricity under the Criminal Code arising from a residential marijuana grow operation containing 536 plants and a hydro bypass.

The offender was a first-time offender assessed as low risk with strong family support and significant medical issues following car accidents.

The court considered the usual custodial range of nine to fifteen months for such offences but balanced general deterrence with substantial mitigating circumstances including the guilty plea and personal circumstances.

Although the court viewed a conditional sentence as conceptually appropriate, it concluded that general deterrence required a custodial sentence.

A six‑month jail sentence was imposed with a ten‑year weapons prohibition and no DNA order.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police executed a search warrant at his apartment after observing short visits indicative of drug trafficking, finding drugs and cash.

The accused testified that the marijuana was for his personal use and that the crack cocaine belonged to his roommate, an exotic dancer who was a cocaine addict.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court found the accused's testimony plausible and noted shortcomings in the police investigation, including the failure to call the roommate as a witness.

The court acquitted the accused of the trafficking and proceeds of crime charges, but found him guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of marijuana based on his own admission.