Jeffrey Chaim Rybak

The defendant, Tyler Scott Jackson, was convicted of possession for the purposes of trafficking 60 grams of fentanyl.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence, while the defence proposed 4 years, emphasizing rehabilitation and systemic factors related to the offender's background as a person of colour.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of fentanyl, flight from police, and prior criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as strong family and employer support, demonstrated rehabilitation efforts, difficult formative years, and the timing of his plea after a Charter motion.

Balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and applying relevant jurisprudence on fentanyl trafficking, the court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment.

The accused, Andre Denis, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine.

The case involved a challenge to the lawfulness of his arrest and subsequent search of his vehicle, leading to the discovery of drugs.

The court found that while the initial arrest for failing to remain and breach of bail was lawful, the subsequent search of a satchel in the car for identification was not objectively reasonable and violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Furthermore, the officer lacked reasonable grounds to conduct a more intrusive search for drugs based on the items found.

The court also found a s. 10(b) Charter violation because the accused was not re-advised of his right to counsel after new, more serious drug charges arose.

Applying the R. v. Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in the adjudication of the case on its merits.

Consequently, the evidence (cocaine) was excluded, and the accused was found not guilty.

The appellant appealed his convictions on 14 counts of fraud arising from his guilty plea.

He asserted that the trial judge failed to provide adequate assistance as an unrepresented person and deprived him of his right to counsel, contrary to s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly exercised discretion in refusing further adjournments for retaining counsel and that the trial judge ensured the appellant understood his guilty plea through a full plea inquiry.

The accused, Jesse French, was charged with aggravated assault and robbery following a brutal attack on Bryan Lavoie, which resulted in the loss of Mr. Lavoie's left eye.

The Crown's case relied on Mr. Lavoie's identification and surveillance video.

The defence challenged the identification, citing inconsistencies in Mr. Lavoie's testimony and contradictions with prior statements and video evidence.

The court found Mr. Lavoie's evidence unreliable due to intoxication, trauma, and discrepancies with prior statements and video footage.

While the accused's post-offence conduct of attempting to clean blood from the scene was noted, it was deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without corroborating evidence of direct involvement in the assault.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The defendant, a Service Ontario customer service representative, was charged with four counts of fraud-related offences, including making false documents, possessing identification with intent to commit fraud, using forged documents, and breach of trust.

It was alleged he participated in a scheme to provide false identification for obtaining genuine Ontario Driver’s Licences and Health Cards.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a co-accused, which the court found unreliable.

The defendant testified he was unaware of the fraudulent nature of the documents, believing he was merely helping a friend's driving students bypass wait times.

The court found the Crown failed to prove actual knowledge or wilful blindness beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.