Jason A. Nicol

The court considered whether Constable Sean O’Rourke’s use of his firearm, which resulted in the death of Nicholas Grieves during an attempted arrest, constituted the unlawful act of careless use of a firearm and thus supported a conviction for manslaughter.

After a detailed review of the evidence, including expert testimony and the circumstances of the incident, the court found that O’Rourke’s actions were reasonable and consistent with police training and policy.

The discharge of the firearm was found to be a tragic accident, not a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable police officer.

The charge of manslaughter was dismissed.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence in the manslaughter trial of Sean O’Rourke, an O.P.P. constable.

The defence sought to call Dr. Laurence Miller, a psychologist, to opine on neuropsychological reactions to stress and memory.

The court found the evidence neither necessary nor relevant, holding that the trier of fact could assess the issues without expert assistance.

The ruling reviews the necessity threshold for expert evidence and applies appellate guidance, ultimately excluding the proposed testimony.

Ricardo Gomez, a Toronto Police Service officer, pleaded guilty to breach of trust for providing confidential information to a member of the public.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence, declining probation or a discharge.

The decision details the facts, Gomez’s background, letters of support, and the legal framework for sentencing, including aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court emphasized the seriousness of breach of trust by police officers and the need for denunciation and deterrence, finding a discharge contrary to the public interest.

The offender, a police officer, was found guilty of failing to provide necessaries of life after a conviction for criminal negligence causing death was quashed on appeal.

The court addressed the defence's application to re-open the case and decline conviction on the remaining charge, which was dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

The court then proceeded to sentence the offender for failing to provide necessaries of life, imposing an 18-month conditional sentence, considering the reduced moral blameworthiness after the criminal negligence conviction was overturned, and the offender's mental health and the harsher impact of custody on a former police officer.

The accused, Hussein Assaad and Jason Ishraki, brought an application under Section 11(b) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay for Assaad was over 26 months and for Ishraki over 30 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued complexity and the COVID-19 pandemic as exceptional circumstances.

The court found that while the case had some hallmarks of complexity, the primary cause of delay was the Crown and police's chosen method of disclosure triage, not inherent complexity.

The court also found the pandemic did not justify the extent of the delay.

The proceedings against both accused were stayed.

The accused, a police constable, was charged with entering a dwelling house without lawful excuse and with intent to commit an indictable offence (criminal harassment) under s. 349(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused did not have a lawful excuse to enter the complainant's residence, given the clear termination of their relationship and his deceptive conduct to gain entry.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to commit an indictable offence *at the point of entry*, as particularized in the information.

The accused's intent to harass was found to have formed *after* entry, when he decided to unlock a door for future access.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

Constable Travis Buckle was charged with assault causing bodily harm after attempting to arrest Dale Delaney on outstanding warrants at Victoria Hospital's emergency department.

During the arrest, Delaney landed face-first on the floor, suffering serious facial injuries.

The Crown argued the arrest was unlawful due to failure to announce the reason for arrest, and alternatively that excessive force was used.

The court found the arrest was lawful, the officer reasonably believed Delaney was attempting to flee, and the force used was justified under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The officer was acquitted.

A police officer with 29 years of service was sentenced to 30 months in custody for sexual interference with a 15-year-old girl whom he met while working at the police station.

The offender initiated sexual contact within two days of their first meeting and maintained an ongoing sexual relationship with the victim over a four-month period involving various sexual acts.

The court found the offender's conduct predatory in nature, aggravated by his position of trust as a police officer and the significant psychological harm inflicted on the victim.

The court rejected expert opinions suggesting low risk of reoffending, finding the offender had misrepresented the circumstances of the relationship to the experts.

Bruce Carson was convicted of fraud on the government under section 121(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, following appeals to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada which overturned his initial acquittal.

The sentencing hearing considered mitigating factors, including his age, admissions shortening the trial, dated criminal record, and the attempted nature of the fraud.

Aggravating factors included his prior fraud record and the potential for significant financial gain.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation for offences impacting government integrity.

Considering the dramatic negative effect on Carson's life and the prior uncertainty of the law, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and 100 hours of community service, rejecting the Crown's request for a conditional sentence.

A police officer was charged with sexual assault following an incident during a traffic stop in the early morning hours of January 4, 2015.

The complainant, a 23-year-old foreign university student from China, was removed from her boyfriend's vehicle during a traffic stop on Woodbine Avenue in Markham, Ontario.

The complainant testified that the officer sexually assaulted her in the rear of his police SUV, including kissing her, touching her breast and vagina, and exposing his erect penis.

The officer denied the allegations.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the officer's evidence as largely incredible.

The court found the officer guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, Kara Darnley, an Ontario Provincial Police officer, was found guilty by a jury of two counts of breach of trust.

She applied for a stay of proceedings for one conviction, alleging entrapment by police undercover operations.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police had reasonable suspicion to initiate the investigation and the "integrity plays" (undercover scenarios).

The court concluded that the police conduct did not go beyond merely providing an opportunity for the commission of the crime and did not induce the offence, thus failing to meet the test for entrapment.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and with breaching a probation order by failing to keep the peace and be of good character.

The Crown alleged the accused assaulted the complainant on April 11, 2013.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and consistent, while the Crown's witnesses demonstrated signs of collusion in their statements to police.

The assault charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

However, the court found the accused guilty of breaching his probation order by committing mischief under section 430 of the Criminal Code when he deliberately knocked the complainant's coffee out of her hand or off the armrest of the couch.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a) and refusal to provide a sample on an approved screening device contrary to section 254(5), arising from an incident on October 10, 2011.

The Crown alleged the accused was swerving on Highway 17, displayed signs of impairment, and intentionally failed to provide an adequate breath sample despite multiple attempts and clear instructions.

The accused raised Charter violations regarding the timing of the approved screening device demand after the officer formed grounds to arrest, the denial of her right to call her husband to obtain legal counsel information, missing video evidence, privacy concerns in custody, and unlawful detention.

The court found the accused lacked credibility and rejected her evidence where it conflicted with police testimony.

The court convicted on both counts, finding the approved screening device demand was lawful despite the officer's subjective belief in grounds to arrest, as the suspension of section 10(b) rights was justified under section 1 of the Charter and the evidence obtained was non-incriminatory.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence from a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) and a Centre of Forensic Sciences report on a urine sample.

The court found that while the accused's performance on physical coordination tests and the presence of multiple drugs in his urine were consistent with impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired at the time of the incident.

The lack of expert evidence regarding the specific effects of the detected drugs, the absence of evidence of impaired driving, and the accused's extreme fatigue as an alternative explanation for poor test performance created reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.