J. Copeland

The appellant appealed an order setting aside an ex parte order that had extended the time for service of his statement of claim.

The motion judge found the appellant failed to make full and fair disclosure regarding an ongoing Mutual Fund Dealers Association investigation.

The motion judge also dismissed the appellant's cross-motion to extend time retroactively due to prejudice to the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's factual findings and deferring to the discretionary balancing of prejudice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possessing proceeds of crime and his 26-month sentence.

He argued the verdict was inconsistent with his acquittal for possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and that the trial judge erred in her circumstantial evidence analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the evidence of knowledge and control over the cash was compelling, unlike the evidence regarding the cocaine.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, holding that the trial judge properly considered the collateral immigration consequences but correctly concluded that a sentence under six months would not adequately address the gravity of the offence.

The accused, a 23-year-old Black man, was found guilty of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm with an over-capacity magazine.

He fled from police and discarded the firearm in a schoolyard.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Morris, the court considered an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the impact of systemic anti-Black racism, educational disadvantages, and exposure to gun violence on the accused.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the accused's young age, lack of prior record, and good prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

The accused, charged with murder, was released on bail.

A mandatory publication ban under s. 517 of the Criminal Code was imposed at the bail hearing.

Following misleading public comments by politicians and the police chief, the accused brought an application to partially lift the publication ban on the bail reasons to counterbalance the misinformation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 517 does not permit partial bans, and while the court has common law jurisdiction to vary the ban, doing so would likely cause more harm than good.

The court held that the accused's fair trial rights would be adequately protected by existing safeguards, including the passage of time, challenge for cause, and jury instructions.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police observed him pull a handgun from his satchel during a takedown.

The accused fled through a schoolyard and was arrested shortly after without the firearm.

A loaded handgun was found the next morning in the schoolyard along the accused's flight path.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found that the circumstantial evidence, combined with the officers' observations, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and discarded the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with firearm offences after police executed a search warrant at a condominium unit and found a loaded restricted firearm in a bag in a bedroom closet.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession, arguing the accused was the leaseholder and occupied the bedroom.

The court found that while the accused had joint control of the bedroom, the evidence did not rule out the reasonable inference that a co-occupant had sole possession of the hidden firearm without the accused's knowledge.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 99 grams of cocaine hidden behind an intercom panel in a bedroom during a search warrant execution.

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, arguing the bedroom belonged to the accused based on dated documents and large clothing found inside.

The accused testified he had moved to the basement months prior and that other individuals, including his brother, had access to the room.

The court applied the W.(D.) and Villaroman frameworks, finding the prosecution's circumstantial case weak and concluding the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault causing bodily harm following an incident where he was shot at, chased his attackers in a vehicle, and engaged in a physical altercation with one of them.

The trial judge found the appellant acted in self-defence initially but used excessive force once the attacker was subdued, and concluded the bodily harm occurred during this latter phase.

On appeal, the court found the trial judge's conclusion regarding when the bodily harm occurred was unreasonable, as it could have happened during the car crash or the initial lawful struggle.

The court set aside the conviction for assault causing bodily harm, substituted a finding of guilt for common assault, and imposed an absolute discharge.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder following a stabbing incident outside a bar.

The accused raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder, arguing he experienced a dissociative episode triggered by post-traumatic stress disorder after hearing a threat to shoot.

The court rejected the NCR defence, finding the accused's evidence of dissociation and lack of memory lacked credibility, particularly given his organized post-offence conduct.

However, the court found the Crown failed to prove the specific intent required for murder and attempted murder beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the suddenness of the attack, the single stab wounds, and the accused's intoxication and PTSD.

The accused was found not guilty of the charged offences but guilty of the included offences of manslaughter and aggravated assault.

During a trial for murder and attempted murder, the Crown and defence brought evidentiary applications.

The Crown sought to admit hearsay statements made by the surviving victim to first responders shortly after being stabbed.

The court admitted the statements under the spontaneous utterance exception.

The defence sought to admit evidence of the deceased victim's disposition to instigate confrontations when intoxicated, pursuant to Scopelliti.

The court admitted the disposition evidence, finding it relevant to the issue of who instigated the confrontation, but also permitted the Crown to adduce evidence of the accused's prior robbery conviction in response.

The defendant, charged with first-degree murder in the death of a plainclothes police officer who was struck by the defendant's vehicle in an underground parking garage, applied for bail.

The court assessed the strength of the Crown's case, finding the case for murder weak due to a lack of motive and the availability of a rational alternative inference that the defendant panicked, believing he was being attacked by strangers.

The court found a reasonably strong case for manslaughter based on criminal negligence.

Concluding that the defendant met his onus under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, the court granted bail on strict conditions, including house arrest, electronic monitoring, a driving prohibition, and a substantial surety pledge combined with an exceptional cash deposit.

The accused, facing charges of criminal harassment and breach of recognizance, was detained on the secondary ground and later found unfit to stand trial.

After treatment, he was detained in hospital on a keep fit order under s. 672.29 of the Criminal Code.

On a 90-day detention review under s. 525, a preliminary issue arose regarding the Superior Court's jurisdiction to hear the review given the concurrent keep fit order.

The court held that it has jurisdiction to conduct the s. 525 review, but any decision to release under s. 525 would not affect the continuing validity of the separate s. 672.29 detention order.

The court ultimately dismissed the s. 525 review, finding detention continued to be justified.

The applicants, a police constable and the Toronto Police Service, brought an application for certiorari to quash a trial judge's ruling issuing a subpoena to the constable to testify on a Charter application in a criminal trial.

The applicants argued that a draft statement of claim and information provided to the defence by another officer were protected by settlement privilege and unlawfully disclosed, triggering the third-party records regime.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error or error of law on the face of the record in the trial judge's conclusions that settlement privilege did not apply, the disclosure was not unlawful, and the test for issuing a subpoena was met.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and uttering threats against his estranged wife, brought an application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code for production of Toronto Children's Aid Society records relating to the complainant's care of their children.

The applicant argued the records were relevant to the complainant's credibility and a motive to fabricate related to child custody.

The court found the first-stage test for likely relevance was met and reviewed the records.

At the second stage, the court largely dismissed the application, finding the undisclosed portions had a high privacy interest and lacked probative value, though it ordered the disclosure of a limited category of unredacted information.

The accused was charged with arson endangering life and arson damaging property following a fire in his apartment.

The accused, who was found unconscious and badly burned, testified he had no memory of the event and no motive to harm himself.

The court rejected the defence of automatism due to a lack of expert evidence.

However, the court found the Crown's expert fire investigator's opinion unreliable regarding the intentional setting of the fires.

Given the lack of motive and the gaps in the expert evidence, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fires were intentionally or recklessly set.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with possession of a restricted firearm, occupying a motor vehicle with a firearm, and breaching prohibition orders after a loaded handgun was found in a hidden compartment in the centre console of his leased vehicle.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance of the accused driving the vehicle and the nature of the hidden compartment.

The court found the accused guilty of constructive possession and one count of breaching a prohibition order, concluding that the only reasonable inference was that he had knowledge and control of the firearm.

However, the accused was acquitted of occupying a motor vehicle with a firearm, as the Crown could not prove he was in the vehicle at the exact time the firearm was present.

The accused was arrested at the airport for sexual assault and making child pornography.

During a lengthy police interview, the accused repeatedly asserted his right to silence and expressed confusion about his rights, but the interviewing officer continued questioning, minimized the allegations, and induced the accused to provide his cell phone password.

The court found the statement was involuntary and obtained in breach of the accused's rights under ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The statement and the contents of the cell phone were excluded from evidence under s. 24(2).

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm arising from a sexual encounter with the complainant.

The trial judge had found the appellant not guilty of sexual assault but guilty of assault causing bodily harm based on bruising to the complainant's thighs.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended the evidence by stating it was 'clear' the complainant did not consent to an earlier slap on the walk home, when her actual testimony indicated a lack of memory.

The summary conviction appeal court agreed, finding the misapprehension was on a matter of substance and played a central role in the trial judge's reasoning process regarding non-consent to the force that caused the bruising.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for two counts of criminal harassment, arguing that the trial judge applied uneven scrutiny to the evidence by placing a higher burden on his testimony than on the complainant's.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the trial judge's reasons, which relied on the W.(D.) and J.J.R.D. frameworks for assessing credibility and reasonable doubt.

The court found that the trial judge properly instructed herself, gave considered reasons for accepting the complainant's evidence, and did not engage in uneven scrutiny.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash the decision of a preliminary inquiry judge who discharged the respondent on charges of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by drawing inferences favourable to the respondent and failing to consider the evidence as a whole.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the preliminary inquiry judge properly applied the Shephard test and engaged in the permissible limited weighing of circumstantial evidence without choosing between competing inferences.