Jason Dos Santos

The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Luis Trindade Pereira of multiple charges including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and breach of undertaking.

The case centered on the credibility and reliability of the complainant M.G. and the accused.

The judge found the accused to be an honest and credible witness, corroborated by independent evidence from a roommate, while rejecting the complainant’s testimony due to inconsistencies, contradictions with independent evidence, and implausible explanations regarding text messages.

The Crown’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt was not met.

In a first-degree murder and attempted murder trial, the accused applied to exclude a surveillance video and audio recording, arguing it was more prejudicial than probative.

The court found portions of the recording to have probative value regarding the accused's mens rea, the timing of events, and animus towards the victim.

However, the court ruled that audio captured after 3:56:50, which depicted frantic calls for the deceased, lacked probative value and was highly prejudicial.

Consequently, the video and audio up to 3:56:50 were admitted, while the audio thereafter was excluded.

The accused, facing charges of first-degree murder and attempted murder, applied for an order allowing defence counsel to deliver an opening statement immediately after the Crown's opening.

The Crown opposed, arguing a lack of special circumstances, the risk of the defence not calling evidence, and that the proposed opening would be impermissible argument.

The court granted the application, finding that the jury would benefit from understanding the narrow focus of the defence (conceding actus reus but disputing mens rea) from the outset.

The judge reasoned that concerns about over-promising or impermissible content are inherent to all opening statements and can be adequately addressed by standard jury instructions, and that there was no realistic danger of the defence failing to call evidence in this case.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of the accused's prior physical altercations with his wife in a first-degree murder and attempted murder trial.

The accused was charged with starting a fire at his in-laws' home, resulting in his mother-in-law's death and injury to his wife, daughters, and father-in-law.

The Crown argued the evidence was relevant to motive and state of mind, providing context for the marital relationship.

The defence argued it had minimal probative value, lacked specific details, and carried significant prejudice by portraying the accused as a "domestic abuser" and feeding stereotypes.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding the evidence had little to no probative value as it was not necessary to understand the relationship's dynamic and was too dissimilar to the charged offences to infer murderous intent.

While the prejudicial effect was minimal, the lack of probative value meant it did not outweigh the prejudice, thus rendering it inadmissible.

The Crown brought an application to admit the accused's videotaped statement to police, while the accused brought an application to exclude the statement, alleging it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel.

The accused, whose first language is Portuguese, argued he did not understand the police cautions due to a language barrier and intoxication.

The court found that the accused understood his right to silence after speaking with duty counsel through an interpreter.

The court dismissed the Charter application and ruled the statement voluntary and admissible, finding no oppressive circumstances or police trickery.

The applicant sought a bail review of a detention order on charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, and participating in a criminal organization.

He argued that fewer charges, a new proposed surety, medical conditions, the COVID-19 pandemic, and trial delays constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the Palmer criteria and found no material change in circumstances, nor was the original decision clearly inappropriate.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The defendant, Regina Dos Santos, was charged with impaired driving, driving with an excess blood alcohol concentration (BAC), and two Highway Traffic Act offences.

The trial included a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of her arrest and the admissibility of breath test results.

The court found that while the police had reasonable grounds for arrest, the defendant's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated due to the police's failure to address her obvious language difficulties, leading to the exclusion of the breath test evidence.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of the excess BAC charge.

However, based on circumstantial evidence, including her poor driving, vehicle damage, admission of alcohol consumption, and statements, the court found her guilty of impaired driving.

The remaining provincial offence was left for further submissions.

The applicant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and exceeding the legal blood-alcohol concentration limit.

He brought Charter applications seeking to exclude evidence derived from roadside conversations with police and breath samples.

The applicant argued his section 7 rights were violated by being compelled to incriminate himself under the Highway Traffic Act, and his section 10(b) rights were violated by improper provision of rights to counsel and steering to duty counsel.

The court found the section 7 application succeeded, excluding all compelled utterances, but the section 10(b) application failed.

The accused was charged with "over 80" (operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood).

The Crown alleged the accused was in care and control of a vehicle at a pizza parlour after consuming alcohol.

The defence raised Charter issues regarding the reliability of the Approved Screening Device (ASD) test due to recent consumption of alcohol and alleged breaches of the right to counsel through improper funneling to duty counsel.

The court found the accused was in care and control of the vehicle, rejected Charter arguments, and convicted the accused of the charge.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg/100 mL following a traffic stop for speeding and erratic driving.

The trial judge found that police breached the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel by failing to provide meaningful access to legal advice in Portuguese, despite knowing the accused had limited English proficiency and had specifically requested a Portuguese-speaking lawyer.

The breath test evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) as a remedy for this serious breach.

However, the trial judge found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on the totality of the driving evidence, resulting in a conviction on the impaired operation charge and dismissal of the Over 80 charge.

The offender, a 33-year-old first offender, was found guilty of possession of cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The police seized over 400 grams of cocaine, over 700 grams of marijuana, and $7,225 in cash from his home.

The Crown sought a sentence of 5 to 5.5 years, while the defence sought 2 to 3 years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the large quantity of drugs and profit motive against the mitigating factors of the offender's lack of a criminal record, employment, and family support.

The court imposed a global sentence of 45 months, reduced to 35 months after crediting 10 months for pre-sentence detention and restrictive bail conditions.

Jeffrey Rebelo was charged with possession of marijuana and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime following a police surveillance and search warrant execution.

The trial included a voir dire on the admissibility of the accused's statements.

The court ruled that utterances made upon arrest were admissible, but a subsequent videotaped statement was inadmissible due to concerns about voluntariness, specifically inducements related to the arrest of his parents and girlfriend.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding that the Crown proved knowledge and control of the drugs and that the seized cash constituted proceeds of crime, based on direct and circumstantial evidence.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common-law partner and assaulting her daughter with a wine bottle.

The court first addressed a Charter application seeking to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay under section 11(b), which was dismissed for non-compliance with Criminal Rules.

On the merits, the court found the accused guilty of assaulting the common-law partner but acquitted him of assaulting the daughter with a weapon.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies, while accepting the complainant's evidence as credible and coherent.

The defendant was arrested for impaired driving and care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol reading of 160 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

At the police detachment, the defendant was subjected to a search that resulted in the exposure of her breasts and buttocks.

The court found that the police conducted an unjustified strip search in breach of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court determined that the circumstances did not warrant such an invasive search and that the police failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the search.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy.

The applicant was charged with impaired care and control and care and control with excess alcohol on May 4, 2014.

She brought a motion under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging that her right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The total delay from charge to trial completion was 20 months.

After analyzing the delay using the framework established in R. v. Morin, the court found that 13 months of delay was attributable to Crown actions and institutional factors, exceeding the guideline period of 8-10 months.

The court concluded that the applicant's Charter rights had been infringed and granted a judicial stay of the charges.

The accused was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, impaired driving, and driving with excess alcohol arising from events on May 7, 2013.

The accused brought a Charter section 11(b) motion alleging his right to trial within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The trial commenced on March 9, 2015, and the accused renewed the 11(b) motion at the conclusion of trial on January 18, 2016.

The court found total delay of approximately 32 months from charge to trial completion, with 15 to 16 months of institutional delay.

Despite the seriousness of the charges and the substantial delay, the court initially dismissed the motion at the outset of trial.

Upon renewal, the court found the delay constituted a breach of section 11(b) rights and stayed all charges.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault, impaired driving, and driving with excess alcohol following a road rage incident.

The defendant claimed self-defence.

The Crown's evidence consisted of testimony from the two complainants and police officers.

The defendant testified that he was struck first and acted in self-defence.

The court found the complainants' evidence inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding who initiated the altercation and their departure from the scene.

The defendant's serious facial injuries supported his version of events.

The court also found a breach of the defendant's Charter rights under section 10(b) regarding the right to counsel, as police failed to provide meaningful advice to a non-native English speaker who was concussed and injured.

The blood test results were excluded as evidence.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

The accused brought a motion on the second day of trial to dismiss charges of impaired driving and driving with over 80mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood.

The accused argued that the Crown was barred by statute from proceeding without the consent of the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General.

The accused was charged in February 2011, released on a Promise to Appear with a March 2011 court date, but no Information was before the court at that appearance.

The accused heard nothing until receiving a Summons in February 2012, over one year later.

The court found that jurisdiction was lost when no Information was before the court at the first appearance, and that the Crown failed to regain jurisdiction within the three-month statutory period.

Accordingly, the charges were deemed dismissed for want of prosecution, and the Crown could not proceed without the required consent, which was never obtained.

The motion was granted and the charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with two driving-related offences and required a Korean interpreter.

The defence challenged the competency of the proposed interpreter, Mr. Hu-Kal Kim, who held only conditional accreditation, having failed to achieve the passing grade of 70% on two of three accreditation tests.

A voir dire was held to determine whether the interpreter was competent to provide forensic interpretation services.

The court applied the five-part test from R. v. Tran and found that despite partial accreditation, the interpreter possessed sufficient competency based on his extensive experience in forensic interpretation since 1981, prior successful qualification voir dires, and specific expertise in drinking and driving trials.