James Mencel

The defendant, Cody Moreau, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of Gladue principles.

The court found the Gladue principles inapplicable due to insufficient objective evidence of Indigenous ancestry or connection to an Indigenous community.

The offence involved extreme violence, a two-on-one attack, and stomping on a helpless victim, resulting in severe head injury.

Moreau had a prior conviction for assault causing bodily harm and was on probation at the time.

Despite mitigating factors such as a difficult upbringing, substance abuse issues, and efforts towards rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 30 months imprisonment, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Brandon Drakes-Simon and Jason Williams for attempt murder, following their conviction for first-degree murder of the same victim.

The attempt murder involved a planned shooting on a highway.

The court identified several aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, possession of multiple illegal guns, Drakes-Simon's prior gun convictions, extreme recklessness endangering others, and a judicial finding that the crime was a contract killing.

Mitigating factors for Williams included his lack of a prior criminal record and strong family support.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 16 years for Drakes-Simon and 11 years for Williams, both running concurrently with their life sentences for first-degree murder.

The Crown applied to admit three categories of discreditable conduct evidence against the accused, Brandon Drakes-Simon and Justin Malcolm, in a first-degree murder trial: Drakes-Simon's acquisition of a firearm, his expressed intention to deal with legal bills, and evidence that he was seeking additional "contract killing" work.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, ruling all three categories of evidence inadmissible.

The judge found the evidence to have negligible probative value due to its general nature and to be overwhelmingly prejudicial, particularly as it amounted to forbidden bad character reasoning.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence (a handgun and statements) obtained during a police investigation.

The court found that the police arbitrarily detained the accused and unlawfully seized and searched his satchel, violating his ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court rejected the claim of racial profiling but found the police conduct to be overzealous and egregious.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, despite the seriousness of the charges.

The defendants, Tal Amdurski and Thomas Graff, jointly charged with sexual services, sexual assault, and human trafficking, brought s. 11(b) Charter applications for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating net delay and considering defence delay and exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found 8 months and 19 days of defence delay attributable to Amdurski, but not to Graff due to his objections and the Crown's concession.

After accounting for 14 months and 4 days of exceptional circumstances (primarily COVID-related), Amdurski's net delay was 25 months and 22 days (below the 30-month ceiling), while Graff's net delay was 31 months and 5 days (exceeding the ceiling).

The court dismissed Amdurski's application and granted Graff's, staying the charges against him.

The appellant was convicted of importing cocaine and appealed on two grounds: the trial judge erred by allowing expert evidence on the likelihood of a drug organization using a blind courier, and by not providing a limiting instruction to the jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in admitting the expert evidence, particularly because defence counsel introduced the topic during cross-examination and agreed to the rephrased question.

The court also found no need for a limiting instruction as the evidence was not prejudicial and its exploration was a tactical decision by the defence.

The accused, Nikolas Morello, was charged with assault against his intimate partner, Megan Charette.

The case involved conflicting testimonies, issues of credibility, and video evidence.

The court found Ms. Charette's testimony to be inconsistent and manipulative, raising serious doubts about her credibility.

While the video showed some physical contact, the court could not ascertain the accused's intent with the required certainty.

The defence of property argument was also briefly addressed, with the court emphasizing caution in applying it in intimate partner violence contexts.

The accused was found not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

The Crown appealed the acquittals of two respondents, Kalenda Kalonji and Sam Donaldson, on firearm and drug-related charges.

The trial judge had quashed a search warrant for a residence, finding no reasonable and probable grounds to believe firearms would be found there, and excluded the seized evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in her s. 8 Charter analysis by failing to consider reasonable common sense inferences that firearms would be kept at a person's residence, effectively elevating the standard of proof for issuing a warrant.

This error led to the improper exclusion of evidence.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals, and ordered a new trial for both respondents.

The applicant, R.G., sought an order to reopen his trial and declare a mistrial after being found guilty of 10 counts of sexual abuse but before sentencing.

He presented fresh evidence, including cell phone records and affidavits, to establish an alibi for some charges and challenge the complainant's credibility.

The court applied the rigorous "exceptional circumstances" and "clearest of cases" test for vacating a guilt adjudication, incorporating the Palmer criteria for fresh evidence.

The court found that the proposed evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to trial and that the application was an attempt to reverse tactical decisions made by the defence.

The application was dismissed, as the test for reopening the trial or declaring a mistrial was not met.

The offender was convicted of armed robbery of a pharmacy while masked, and several firearms offences relating to a loaded, sawed-off SKS rifle.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record including prior armed robberies.

The Crown sought a 16-year global sentence, while the defence sought 9-10 years with significant credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied the totality principle and considered the offender's rehabilitative prospects, imposing a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, charged with domestic violence offences across two informations, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total anticipated delay was nearly 35 months.

The court deducted delay caused by the complainant's failure to attend the first trial and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found the Crown's decision to join the two informations was reasonable and did not reflect indifference to the applicant's Charter rights.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude drugs and money seized from her apartment during a police search.

The police obtained a warrant based on information from confidential informants targeting two other individuals, believing one of them lived with the applicant.

The court found the Information to Obtain (ITO) did not disclose reasonable grounds to believe the target lived at the applicant's address, rendering the warrant invalid and the search a violation of section 8 of the Charter.

Additionally, the police seriously breached the applicant's section 10(b) right to counsel by failing to facilitate contact with her lawyer despite her repeated requests.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the serious, multiple Charter breaches and their significant impact on the applicant's privacy and security interests warranted the exclusion of the evidence.

The Peel Regional Police Service applied for a stay of a disclosure order pending an application for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The disclosure order required the Crown to provide the investigative files of a police officer, who was charged with unrelated offences, to the accused as first-party disclosure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that there was a serious question to be determined, the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the appeal became moot, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The stay was granted, subject to terms regarding its expiration.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, seeking release on a house arrest plan with two sureties and GPS monitoring.

The accused was previously detained on the secondary ground due to a substantial likelihood of reoffending, having allegedly committed the current drug trafficking offences while on multiple bails.

The court found that while there was a material change in circumstances, the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge of the accused to provide effective supervision.

The application was dismissed as the release plan did not adequately address the secondary ground concerns.

The applicants, Dyllan Ali and Diquan Taylor, facing firearms and drug trafficking charges, brought a motion for disclosure of the full contents of disciplinary and criminal investigation files relating to Constable Sean Osborne, a key police witness.

The court dismissed the request for disclosure of files related to past disciplinary findings, citing principles of finality and lack of demonstrated likely relevance.

However, the court granted the request for disclosure of investigative files related to Constable Osborne's outstanding criminal charges for assault and obstruction of justice, finding them "obviously relevant" to the applicants' Charter application and trial, particularly concerning the officer's credibility and potential propensity for misconduct.

This is a ruling on committal for three accused charged with a brazen daytime shooting in Regent Park on May 28, 2018, allegedly in retaliation for a shooting in Vanauley Walk the previous day.

The Crown alleges the accused are members of Menace Gang, a junior gang associated with the Project Originals criminal organization.

The accused are charged with numerous offences including possession and discharge of firearms, dangerous driving, and committing these offences for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The court examined party liability under sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code, the admissibility of rap music videos as evidence of criminal organization status, and the distinction between acts that have the effect of benefitting a criminal organization versus acts done for that purpose.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of trafficking cocaine and one count of offering to sell a firearm to an undercover officer.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the drug operation and the accused's prior related record, against mitigating factors such as his youth, guilty pleas, and rehabilitation efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months, but granted 6 months' credit for time spent under strict bail conditions (house arrest) and 8 days for pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 12 months minus 8 days, plus two years' probation.

Adrian Bissoon pleaded guilty to three counts of cocaine trafficking and one count of offering a prohibited firearm for sale.

This decision addresses a Gardiner hearing to determine aggravating facts for sentencing.

The Crown sought to establish that the accused was involved in a commercial drug trafficking operation and intended to sell a firearm.

The court found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused was an active commercial-level cocaine dealer, considering this an aggravating factor.

However, the court found insufficient evidence to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused intended to sell a firearm, concluding that his representations were mere puffery.

Therefore, the offer to sell a firearm was not considered an aggravating factor.

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 applicant sought a bail review of a detention order made by a Justice of the Peace.

The original detention was based on secondary grounds due to the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of non-compliance with court orders, and multiple outstanding charges, despite a joint submission for release on a recognizance without a surety.

The reviewing judge found errors in the original bail hearing, specifically the inadequate record for judicial discretion and the failure to provide notice of concerns before rejecting the joint submission.

However, upon a de novo review with an enhanced record, the court upheld the detention, finding a substantial likelihood of further criminal offences threatening public safety, given the applicant's incorrigible profile of violence and re-arrests while on bail.