Jason Randall Barrs

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his language barriers, physical limitations, and alternative explanations for his erratic driving.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found no misapprehension of evidence, holding that the trial judge properly assessed the totality of the evidence, including police and civilian witness testimony, and that the findings of fact were reasonably supported.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming for permitting an underage patron to have alcohol and permitting drunkenness on the premises.

The Tribunal held that the defence of due diligence is not available for the underage drinking offence under section 30(4) of the Liquor Licence Act, confirming the $2,500 penalty.

However, the Tribunal found that the appellant did not permit drunkenness under section 45(1) of the Regulation, as staff acted with reasonable dispatch upon observing signs of intoxication, and set aside the $1,500 penalty.

Sentencing for a first offender convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted handgun, knowing unauthorized possession, and careless storage after purchasing the weapon illegally for self-protection following threats.

The court held that the offence was true criminal conduct, not merely regulatory non-compliance, and that denunciation and deterrence required a custodial sentence notwithstanding the offender's age, medical issues, remorse, lack of record, and rehabilitative prospects.

Applying the rule against multiple convictions, the court stayed the duplicative s. 91 count.

A suspended sentence and conditional sentence were rejected, and a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment followed by two years' probation was imposed together with forfeiture, lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA, and victim surcharge orders.

The accused brought a pre‑trial application seeking exclusion of a handgun seized during execution of a search warrant at his residence, arguing violations of s. 8 of the Charter relating to the sufficiency of the information to obtain the warrant, use of the telewarrant procedure, and the manner of the dynamic nighttime entry.

The court held that the issuing justice could reasonably have granted the warrant based on credible information from a confidential informant corroborated in part by police investigation.

The court further found that resort to the telewarrant procedure was justified because it was impracticable to appear before a justice in person late on a Sunday evening.

The dynamic nighttime entry using a tactical police team was also reasonable given the risk posed by firearms and the potential destruction or relocation of evidence.

In the alternative, even if a Charter breach had occurred, the firearm would have been admitted under s. 24(2) because the police acted in good faith and the evidence was highly reliable and central to the prosecution.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings as a remedy for an alleged breach of his Section 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time.

The court found that over twelve months had elapsed since arrest, with the matter scheduled for a third trial date.

The court attributed approximately eleven months and twenty-two days of delay to institutional causes, including the court's failure to prioritize the matter on the second trial date.

The court also found that the applicant had suffered prejudice by being unable to afford expert toxicology evidence due to financial hardship caused by the delays.

The court granted a stay of proceedings under Section 24(1) of the Charter.

The applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness on its premises.

The applicant argued the patron in question was not intoxicated but was suffering from diabetes.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the testimony of the Registrar's inspectors and police officers regarding the patron's signs of intoxication to be more credible than the applicant's witness.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to call the patron to testify or provide medical evidence of his diabetes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant permitted drunkenness and directed the Registrar to carry out the 14-day suspension.

The Applicant appealed a Notice of Proposal to suspend its liquor licence for 14 days.

The Tribunal previously found the Applicant breached capacity limits but not rules regarding disorderly conduct.

The Registrar sought a 10-12 day suspension, while the Applicant requested a warning.

Considering the public safety risk of overcrowding and the Applicant's prior good record, the Tribunal ordered a 6-day suspension.

The Manager of Hearings for the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a letter to correct a typographical error in paragraph 17 of the Board's June 17, 2011 decision regarding liquor licence number 810853.

The correction was made pursuant to Rule 2.6 of the AGCO Revised Rules of Practice.

At a pre-hearing tele-conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence, the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario ordered the licensee to disclose its witness list and evidence summaries to the Registrar ten days prior to the hearing.

The Registrar was also ordered to complete any further disclosure ten days before the hearing.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend and refuse to transfer the respondent's liquor licence due to alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act regulations.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that drunken patrons were on the premises on three dates, violating s. 45(1) of O. Reg 719/90.

The Board accepted the joint submission on disposition, ordering a 14-day suspension of the liquor licence and the withdrawal of the remaining allegations and the proposal to refuse the licence transfer.

The applicant moved for a stay of an order revoking its liquor licence pending an appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Board had revoked the licence after finding that drug dealing was openly conducted on the premises with the owner's knowledge.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the appeal lacked bona fides, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, and the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in removing the licence.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario revoking its liquor licence.

The Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence regarding noise issues that had the potential to fundamentally alter the Board's conclusion on the public interest.

Consequently, the Court set aside the Board's order and remitted the matter to a differently constituted Board for a new hearing, with interim conditions imposed on the appellant's operations.

The appellant appealed his convictions for production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, mischief, and theft of electricity, as well as his 90-day intermittent sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding he had control over the prohibited substance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding it was open to the trial judge to infer control given the obviousness of the grow operation and the appellant's 37-minute stay in the residence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the sentence was not demonstrably unfit given the size and sophistication of the operation.

The appellant appealed his convictions for trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

During deliberations, the jury requested a playback of a specific portion of the appellant's testimony.

The trial judge refused the request, expressing confusion and instructing the jury to continue discussing.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to respond directly to the jury's question and denying them a review of evidence central to the appellant's credibility.

The convictions for the cocaine offences were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The requesting state appealed an order discharging fugitives at an extradition hearing on heroin conspiracy charges.

The Court of Appeal held that the extradition judge misapplied s. 18(1)(b) of the Extradition Act by focusing on proof of the foreign offences and territorial situs rather than asking whether the conduct underlying the foreign charges, wherever it occurred, would if committed in Canada establish a prima facie case of any Canadian extradition offence.

Applying the proper conduct-based double criminality analysis, the court found sufficient evidence of conspiracy to traffic in heroin and trafficking in heroin to justify committal.

The fugitives' separate application alleging a 25-month appellate delay under s. 7 of the Charter was dismissed because they took no steps to expedite the appeal and showed no real prejudice affecting fairness.