Jeffrey Andrew Carolin

The appellant appealed convictions for impaired driving causing death, arguing Charter violations (s. 8 and s. 10(b)) related to police conduct at the hospital, which he claimed necessitated the exclusion of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) results under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police smelling the appellant's breath in the emergency room did not constitute a s. 8 Charter breach, nor was the appellant detained for s. 10(b) purposes.

The court held that the BAC results were properly admitted as they were obtained via valid warrants based on untainted information.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession, making available, and making child pornography, raising four grounds: unfair trial due to admission of child pornography, undermined defence, breach of s. 10(b) Charter rights regarding right to counsel, and breach of s. 8 Charter rights regarding a strip search.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding that the trial judge properly balanced the probative value and prejudicial effect of the evidence, did not err in charging the jury, and correctly applied Charter principles regarding the right to counsel and the reasonableness of the strip search.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms and drug offences, and the sentence imposed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's inference that the appellant knew about the hidden firearm.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in principle by concluding that a conditional sentence was outside the range for firearms offences.

Considering the appellant's significant rehabilitative progress and personal circumstances, the Court varied the sentence for the firearms charge to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, while maintaining the time served sentence for the drug charges.

The appellant, Justin Longshaw, appealed his convictions for threatening, weapon possession, obstructing a peace officer, and probation breach, stemming from an incident at a bar where identification was the key issue.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of eyewitness identification evidence, particularly the continuous observation by one witness, and her conclusion that providing a false name constituted obstruction.

The sentence appeal was contingent and thus also dismissed.

The appellant, a permanent resident, appealed his robbery convictions, arguing his guilty pleas were uninformed due to misadvice from trial counsel regarding immigration consequences.

He was led to believe that sentences under two years per count would provide a "fighting chance" from an immigration perspective, when in fact, sentences over six months rendered him inadmissible with no right to appeal a removal order.

Applying the test from R. v. Wong, the Court of Appeal found the pleas uninformed and that the appellant suffered subjective prejudice, as he would have opted for a trial or different conditions had he been properly advised.

The convictions were set aside, a new trial ordered, and further proceedings were stayed in the public interest given the served sentences, lack of re-offending, and court resource pressures.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Justice that had dismissed an application for certiorari.

The appellant sought certiorari to quash a provincial court judge's decision to commit him to trial on a charge of first-degree murder.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the application judge that there was a sufficient basis in the evidence for a properly instructed jury to convict on the charge.

The appellant, Carlos Pavao, appealed his convictions for fraud and his sentence.

He was convicted of defrauding ten investors and the public through the sale of non-existent shares in gold mining companies.

His appeal of conviction was based on alleged misapprehensions of evidence by the trial judge and a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence and that the delay was justified under the Morin transitional exception.

However, the Court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the restitution and fine orders by $45,000, as these amounts related to individuals who were not named complainants in the indictment.

The appellant was convicted of two counts of robbery, one count of use of an imitation firearm in the commission of an indictable offence, two counts of assault causing bodily harm, and one count of threatening to cause death, arising from violent robberies of two victims behind the Yorkdale Subway Station in Toronto.

The appellant received a global sentence of four years' imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant sought to adduce fresh evidence consisting of an expert forensic report authenticating Voxer App voicemail messages that would establish his absence from the scene of the robberies.

The Crown consented to the admission of the fresh evidence and conceded that the convictions amounted to a miscarriage of justice.

Michael Duru, charged with attempt murder and endangering life, sought a new bail hearing after his previous bail was cancelled due to breaches.

The Crown opposed, citing prior breaches including a robbery conviction and a curfew breach.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

The judge found the robbery to be an unusual circumstance not indicative of a substantial risk of re-offence posing a public danger, and the curfew breach, while serious, did not warrant detention given Duru's lengthy compliance periods.

On tertiary grounds, the court found the Crown's case not to be overwhelming, thus not diminishing confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with varied conditions, including new sureties (mother and father) and an adjusted curfew to allow for night employment.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of importing heroin into Canada and possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused received a package addressed to "John Henshaw" at his Toronto residence, which was later found to contain heroin.

The Crown withdrew two conspiracy counts after all evidence was heard.

The central issue was whether sufficient evidence existed to establish the accused's knowledge of the drugs to meet the Sheppard test for committal to trial.

The court found that the Crown had presented sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a reasonable inference of knowledge, including the receipt of a similar package from Pakistan one month earlier, the false name on the package, and the implausibility of sending high-value drugs to a stranger's address.

Applicants sought to vary or terminate sealing orders made in relation to two search warrants executed on their home in 2013 and 2014.

No items were seized and no charges were laid.

The Crown provided redacted copies of the Informations to Obtain (ITOs), with redactions limited to information that might identify confidential informants.

The applicants challenged the scope of the redactions and sought full access to the ITOs.

The court held that once a search warrant is executed, the warrant and ITO are presumptively accessible to the occupiers of the searched premises, subject only to redactions necessary to protect confidential informant identity.

The court ordered the Crown to produce unredacted copies for judicial review to ensure redactions were not overbroad.