J. Clark

The applicants, Greg Guthrie and Delon Griffith, sought an order for severance of charges in a multi-count indictment related to cocaine importation and conspiracy.

Guthrie applied to be tried separately on counts one and four from counts two and three, while Griffith sought to sever counts two and three from counts one and four.

The court considered the legal and factual nexus between the counts, the applicants' intention to testify on some counts but not others, and potential prejudice.

The court found a sufficient factual and legal nexus, concluding that the Crown's theory of an ongoing enterprise was reasonable.

It dismissed concerns about testimonial intention and prejudice, emphasizing that a properly instructed jury could consider each count separately.

Both severance applications were dismissed.

An appeal of two convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace fall.

The appellant corporation was convicted of failing to ensure a worker was protected by a guardrail system and failing to ensure a worker was protected by fall protection equipment.

The trial judge found the corporation guilty despite accepting evidence that it had installed compliant guardrails, provided appropriate safety equipment, implemented clear safety policies, conducted training, performed audits, and disciplined non-compliance.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misdirected herself on the law regarding the actus reus of the offences and the proper test for the due diligence defence.

Convictions were set aside and acquittals substituted.

A worker fell approximately 22 feet from a roof while operating a motorized buggy to dump garbage during a re-roofing project.

The defendant corporation was charged with two counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act for failing to ensure prescribed fall protection measures were carried out.

The defendant had installed a guardrail system and provided fall protection equipment, but the worker removed the guardrails without tying off.

The court found the actus reus proven beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding no clear process was in place for the alternative garbage disposal method at the time of the accident.

The trustee in bankruptcy brought motions under s. 164 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act seeking orders compelling examinations and document production from individuals believed to possess information regarding the affairs of the bankrupt corporations.

The court found that certain individuals had failed to attend examinations or comply with undertakings and ordered them to attend examinations, produce documents, and pay modest costs for non‑attendance.

The court also granted disclosure orders against telecommunications and technology companies to obtain subscriber information linked to specified IP addresses, telephone numbers, and email accounts believed to contain relevant records.

In addition, the trustee sought approval of its solicitor’s accounts in the bankruptcies.

The court reviewed the accounts, found them reasonable in the circumstances, and approved the fees.

The trustee in bankruptcy sought an order under s. 164 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act compelling a telecommunications provider to produce email and cellphone records allegedly connected to a third party who may have had knowledge of a fraudulent financial statement used to obtain bank financing.

The court held that while stored emails and phone records can constitute “documents” within s. 164, the trustee must demonstrate a sufficient connection between the requested records and the bankrupt’s dealings or property.

The evidence did not establish a sufficient link between the requested email account and the relevant individual, and the request for phone records was overly broad.

Limited relief was granted requiring disclosure of subscriber information for a specific phone number referenced in a fraudulent email, and the provider was ordered to preserve relevant records pending further order.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and multiple firearms and ammunition offences following the execution of a search warrant at an apartment in Oshawa.

Cocaine, two loaded handguns, and ammunition were found hidden under a desk drawer in the bedroom normally occupied by the accused's mother.

The Crown argued the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The defence contended there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the items and that other residents and visitors had access to the bedroom.

The court found that while the accused or his brother likely brought the contraband into the apartment, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt which brother was responsible.

The realistic possibility that the brother hid the items without the accused's knowledge was fatal to the prosecution's case.

The defendant brought a Garofoli motion to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to the execution of a search warrant at his mother's residence, alleging a violation of section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant challenged both his standing to bring the motion and the sufficiency of grounds in the Information to Obtain the warrant.

The court found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the residence and therefore had standing.

The court also found that while the Information contained some deficiencies in disclosure, there was sufficient reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrant.

Even if the warrant was issued without reasonable and probable grounds, the court would have admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the administration of justice would not be brought into disrepute.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

Evidence established that the offender had operated a large-scale marijuana trafficking enterprise for approximately fourteen years, distributing significant quantities and accumulating substantial illicit proceeds.

The sentencing court treated the offender’s admissions of long-term trafficking as aggravating circumstances under s.725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and emphasized denunciation and general deterrence given the scale and organized nature of the operation.

Charter breaches identified during pre‑trial proceedings were found to be technical and did not justify sentence reduction.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence, consecutive terms for the offences, a substantial fine to strip illicit gains, and a victim surcharge.