Jason Gorda

The applicant, charged with fraud and breach of trust, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging an unreasonable strip search following her arrest.

The court found that the police conducted the strip search without reasonable and probable grounds and in an unreasonable manner, failing to adhere to the principles established in R. v. Golden.

The search was deemed routine, degrading, lacked proper documentation, and was conducted without adequate privacy, exacerbated by a s. 10(b) Charter breach during questioning.

Given the systemic nature of the violations and the severe impact on the applicant, a stay of proceedings was granted as the only adequate remedy.

The accused, Zaid Mohammed, sought a bail review after being denied bail by a lower court.

He was facing charges related to three incidents, including attempted murder, aggravated assault, simple drug possession, and breaches of recognizance.

The review court found a material change in circumstances due to the withdrawal of several serious federal drug trafficking and proceeds of crime charges.

Considering the accused's minimal criminal record, youth, and a stringent proposed release plan involving house arrest, a substantial surety pledge, and electronic monitoring, the court found that detention was not necessary on secondary or tertiary grounds to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for interim judicial release was granted.

Adrian Foster was charged with willfully killing a dog and causing it unnecessary suffering, contrary to sections 445(1) and 445.1 of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident where his dog fell from his seventh-floor balcony.

The Crown alleged Foster deliberately threw the dog, while Foster claimed it was an accident.

The court, relying on circumstantial evidence, found Foster's testimony unbelievable due to inconsistencies and his unusual reaction to the dog's injury.

The physical impossibility of an accidental fall from the balcony, combined with Foster's statements and lack of remorse, led the court to conclude that guilt was the only reasonable inference.

Foster was found guilty on both counts.

The offender was convicted by a jury of armed robbery following a planned home invasion where the victims were held at gunpoint and one was shot twice.

The offender acted as the getaway driver and planner, recruiting younger individuals to carry out the robbery.

The court applied the 4 to 13 year sentencing range for home invasions, noting the severe physical and psychological impact on the victims and the offender's lengthy criminal record.

The offender was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment, less 6 months credit for time spent on house arrest, resulting in an effective sentence of 8.5 years.

A young person, age 15 at the time of the offence, pleaded guilty to robbery and aggravated assault arising from a home invasion on June 25, 2015.

The accused was part of a group of six individuals (including two adults) who invaded a residence in east Toronto armed with two handguns and a crowbar.

While the accused did not directly inflict violence, he participated in the criminal enterprise.

One victim was shot twice in the abdomen and pelvis, sustaining serious injuries including permanent nerve damage.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months custody (3 months 25 days closed, 4 months open, 4 months community supervision) followed by 12 months probation, with credit for 18 months of restrictive bail conditions and 3 days pre-trial custody.

A DNA order and 10-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The accused was charged with threatening bodily harm to a transit bus driver, assaulting police officers while resisting arrest, attempting to take a weapon from a peace officer, and failing to comply with probation by not making full restitution.

The Crown proved that the accused threatened the bus driver with violence after becoming frustrated about being late for work.

The court found the accused guilty of threatening bodily harm, assault while resisting arrest, and failing to comply with probation.

However, the court acquitted on the charge of attempting to take the officer's weapon, finding reasonable doubt as to whether the accused acted with the necessary intent to disarm the officer during the struggle.

The appellant was convicted of firearms offences after a handgun was found in the driver's footwell of a vehicle in which he was the sole passenger.

The driver was acquitted.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to assess his case independently from the driver's and by rendering an unreasonable verdict based on speculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly considered the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's opportunity, proximity to the firearm, and after-the-fact conduct.

The sentence appeal was allowed to grant enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting 911 recordings and the complainant's signed statement to police under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, and in assigning them weight.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's admissibility ruling or her assessment of the evidence's weight.

The appellant was convicted of sexually assaulting his stepsister and sentenced to two years less a day.

He appealed both the conviction and the sentence.

On the conviction appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in assessing his credibility, evaluating the reliability of the complainant's evidence, and treating the evidence of the complainant's mother.

The Court of Appeal found no errors in the trial judge's credibility and reliability assessments.

On the sentence appeal, the Court held that despite the conduct being at the lower end of the range, the blatant breach of trust and multiple assaults justified the sentence.

Both appeals were dismissed.

Following the release of its decision on the appeal, the Court of Appeal determined the specific terms for the appellant's conditional sentence and probation.

The 14-month conditional sentence includes statutory conditions, a no-contact order, eight months of house arrest with exceptions, and a curfew for the remainder.

A one-year probation period follows with similar no-contact conditions.

The appellant was convicted of fraud and uttering forged documents after registering a forged deed to transfer his mother's condominium to himself.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in jury instructions regarding discreditable conduct, hearsay, and evidence review, and improperly restricted re-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no reversible errors.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal because the substituted sentencing judge imposed an 18-month jail term that the original trial judge had explicitly stated was excessive, without giving the appellant an opportunity to make further submissions.

The sentence was varied to an 18-month conditional sentence and one year of probation.

The appellant was convicted of several counts related to a home invasion and sentenced to 10 years in custody.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred in rejecting his alibi and in accepting the evidence of an unsavoury witness to establish identity.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's factual findings or consideration of confirmatory evidence, including fingerprints and the timing of the arrest.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 10-year sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's criminal record.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board ordering her continued detention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant continues to pose a significant risk due to her lack of insight into her mental illness, history of non-compliance with medication, and the violent nature of the index offence.

The court concluded the detention order was the least restrictive measure to manage the risk.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

Because the underlying finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) had already been set aside on a separate appeal, the Court of Appeal quashed this appeal from the ORB decision for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant was convicted of assault and unlawful confinement for his role in a home invasion and robbery, and was sentenced to 18 months in custody.

He appealed the sentence, seeking an 18-month conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the custodial sentence fit and adequately reflective of mitigating factors, including his lack of a prior record and minor role in the offences.

The appellant sought leave to appeal his conviction for failing or refusing to comply with a demand to give a breath sample without reasonable excuse.

He argued that he was arbitrarily detained, that the trial judge erred in finding he had the requisite mens rea, and that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence.

The Court of Appeal denied leave to appeal, finding that the grounds of appeal were weak and had no significance to the administration of justice.

The court held that mere contact with a police officer does not constitute arbitrary detention, the trial judge correctly applied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt for mens rea, and there was no misapprehension of evidence.

The appellant appealed his sentence, seeking enhanced credit for 20 months of pretrial custody.

The trial judge had only given 1 month of enhanced credit for 44 lock-down days.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Summers, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted 1.5 to 1 credit for the entire 20 months of pretrial custody, reducing the sentence accordingly.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings against the accused, who was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The trial judge found that the accused's section 7 Charter rights were violated due to excessive force and mistreatment by police officers while in custody.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding a Charter breach and correctly exercised his discretion under section 24(1) to grant a stay of proceedings.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for failing to comply with a demand to provide a suitable breath sample under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

She argued that the trial judge’s extensive questioning of witnesses compromised the appearance of trial fairness and that the judge erred in assessing the elements of the offence, particularly regarding voluntariness and reasonable excuse.

The court acknowledged that the trial judge improperly assumed part of the Crown’s role during examinations-in-chief but found that the interventions did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial.

The court further held that the trial judge reasonably concluded that the accused intentionally failed to provide a suitable sample and rejected the explanation that cold weather and nervousness made compliance impossible.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed in the Ontario Court of Justice after pleading guilty to stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The parties had made a joint submission proposing a $2,000 fine and probation without a driving suspension.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and instead imposed the fine together with a 12‑month driving suspension, concluding the proposed sentence was manifestly inadequate given the admitted conduct of driving approximately 190 km/h and weaving through traffic.

On appeal, the court held that the sentencing judge properly recognized the high threshold for rejecting joint submissions and provided counsel an opportunity to make further submissions.

The court found no error of law and declined to interfere with the sentence.