James Zegers

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of Devon Cherrey-Rooke, who was killed on August 7, 2022, in London, Ontario.

The offender, who was heavily intoxicated on crystal methamphetamine and fentanyl, engaged in an unprovoked armed attack on an unarmed, vulnerable homeless victim following a dispute over a drug transaction.

The attack lasted approximately 26 seconds and involved six strikes with a sharp-bladed instrument and a final kick.

The victim sustained three sharp force wounds, including a stab wound to the left thigh that severed a major artery, resulting in fatal hemorrhagic shock.

The offender fled the scene without rendering assistance, changed his distinctive clothing, and was arrested eight days later.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of nine years, with credit for 1,103 days of pretrial custody at a rate of 1.5:1, resulting in a net sentence of approximately 4 years, 5 months to be served in a federal penitentiary.

The Crown applied under section 714.2(1) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant in a sexual assault case to testify by videoconference from Florida, where she was residing with her mother due to an unforeseen health crisis and was currently self-isolating after testing positive for COVID-19.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing that videoconference testimony would violate principles of fundamental justice, including the right to face one's accuser and concerns about the solemnity of proceedings.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the respondent failed to demonstrate meaningful prejudice to his fair trial interests and that videoconference evidence is a capable substitute for in-person testimony under the Criminal Code framework.

The appellant appealed his sentence of two years less a day for trafficking cocaine to undercover police officers on three occasions within a two-week period.

The appellant argued that the sentencing judge erred in principle by applying the parity principle without sufficient information regarding a co-accused's sentence.

The sentencing judge acknowledged the need for caution but proceeded to rely on the co-accused's sentence despite incomplete information.

The Court of Appeal found this constituted an error in principle that impacted the sentence and reduced the appellant's sentence to 12 months.

The accused brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The charges stemmed from a traffic stop where police discovered methamphetamine, hydromorphone, and weapons.

The court found that the police officer used the traffic stop as a pretext to investigate suspicions of drug activity and probation breaches, without legitimate highway safety concerns.

This constituted an arbitrary detention under s. 9 of the Charter, which tainted the subsequent plain view seizure and searches incident to arrest, violating s. 8.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the seriousness of the police misconduct.

The evidence was excluded.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of James Bernard for driving with excess blood alcohol.

The trial judge had found violations of Mr. Bernard's s. 10(b) Charter rights (informational and implementational components) and excluded breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2).

The Superior Court of Justice, on appeal, found that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and erred in law regarding the s. 10(b) Charter analysis, particularly concerning officer safety exceptions and the feasibility of roadside counsel consultation.

The court also found errors in the s. 24(2) Grant analysis.

The appeal was granted, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The accused was charged with 13 offences arising from a domestic relationship with a young woman.

The Crown withdrew four charges and proceeded on five counts: common assault, two counts of assault with a weapon (knife and door), assault causing bodily harm, and unlawful confinement.

The trial involved extensive evidence of a pattern of physical and emotional abuse, isolation, drug manipulation, and threats.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and compelling, rejecting defence arguments based on myths and stereotypes about domestic violence victims.

The court convicted on all five remaining counts.

The appellant appealed his conviction entered by the Superior Court of Justice on July 4, 2016.

The principal issue was whether the trial judge erred in finding that a reasonable person in the officer's position would have believed reasonable and probable grounds existed to arrest the appellant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's analysis, finding that she stated the correct test, correctly examined the totality of the circumstances, and that those circumstances supported the objective reasonableness of the search.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, Faouzi Reslan, appealed his conviction for sexual assault and the imposed sentence of three months custody followed by two years probation.

The appeal from conviction was based on the trial judge's alleged failure to provide adequate reasons and misapprehension of evidence, particularly regarding inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony.

The appeal from sentence argued that the trial judge erred by overly focusing on denunciation and deterrence, failing to consider the appellant's medical issues, and imposing an unnecessarily harsh sentence by rejecting a conditional sentence.

The court dismissed both appeals, finding the trial judge's reasons for conviction adequate and her sentencing decision within the acceptable range, properly balancing sentencing principles and considering the appellant's circumstances.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant at a preliminary hearing (a Dawson Application).

The applicant was charged with marijuana possession, marijuana production, careless use of a firearm, and two counts of unauthorized possession of a weapon.

The applicant argued that the information in the ITO was only minimally corroborated and that the confidential source was unproven.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not tendered extrinsic contradictory evidence, had not demonstrated facial validity issues with the ITO, and had not shown that the affiant inaccurately or unfairly presented the information.

The proposed cross-examination did not fall within the scope permitted under the Garofoli test.

The appellant appealed his convictions for having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and failing to comply with a breath demand.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the arresting officer had objectively reasonable grounds to make the breath demand.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the constellation of facts—including the appellant sleeping in a running car at 3 a.m., the smell of alcohol, a partially consumed bottle of vodka, fumbling with his wallet, and stumbling—objectively supported the officer's subjective belief of impairment.

A secondary ground regarding re-examination of the officer was also dismissed.