Jeffrey Luke Fisher

The accused were arrested following a drug trafficking investigation where a youth sold fentanyl to an undercover officer.

Orgen Dorjee was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle with a large quantity of drugs, while Tenzin Dorjee was in the back seat next to a loaded firearm.

The Crown alleged they were engaged in a joint drug trafficking enterprise and were in constructive possession of each other's illicit items.

The court found Tenzin Dorjee guilty of possessing the loaded firearm, as it was in plain view and he fled from police.

However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove a joint enterprise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, Orgen Dorjee was acquitted of the firearm charges, and Tenzin Dorjee was acquitted of the drug charges.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, engaged in illogical reasoning, and relied on stereotypes regarding the lack of a prior relationship between the parties.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings were grounded in the evidence and free from reversible error.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, concluding the trial judge misapprehended the appellant's evidence and relied on unwarranted common-sense assumptions about sexual encounters between acquaintances.

The Crown applied to admit a video statement of a deceased complainant under the principled exception to the hearsay rule in a historical sexual assault case.

The court found the statement lacked procedural reliability as it was not under oath and the complainant was not warned about the consequences of lying.

Substantive reliability was also lacking due to the complainant's mental health issues, potential motive to fabricate, and implausible details.

The corroborative evidence from siblings and the accused was insufficient to overcome the hearsay dangers.

The application was dismissed.

Martin Moore pleaded guilty to multiple offences including attempted disarming of a peace officer, break and enter, fraud under $5000, and assaulting a peace officer.

The court rejected a joint sentencing submission of 120 days custody, finding it unhinged from the circumstances and offender's conduct.

The judge emphasized that an attempt to disarm a peace officer is as serious as a successful disarmament under s. 270.1 of the Criminal Code, and that the offender's failure to succeed is not mitigating.

The court imposed a global sentence of 300 days custody with enhanced presentence credit, probation, and ancillary orders, highlighting numerous aggravating factors including breach of recognizance, false identification, and violent conduct.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate custodial sentence for Baskaran Balasooriyan, convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a 12-year-old child, mischief, criminal harassment, and breach of release order.

The court considered the applicability of the Kienapple principle to stay counts, the availability of a s. 161 order to protect children, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order.

The judge rejected the defence's proposed conditional sentence and stay of mischief, emphasizing the high moral culpability, risk to the community, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The sentence imposed included 420 days custody for attempted abduction (fully credited for presentence custody), 60 days for possession, and a suspended sentence for breach, followed by probation, DNA, s. 161, and s. 109 orders.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and breach of an undertaking.

She was on bail pending appeal for a prior trafficking conviction at the time of the offence.

The court weighed her guilty plea, remorse, and the harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (including triple bunking and lockdowns) against the large quantity of cocaine and her related criminal record.

The court imposed a total sentence of 6 years and 3 months, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendant, Nockeem Peck, was charged with possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application to exclude the heroin as evidence, arguing it was obtained through an arbitrary detention in violation of his s. 9 Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding that no detention occurred prior to a lawful arrest, as police merely approached the vehicle and observed a crime in progress before any interaction.

The court distinguished the facts from cases where police conduct constituted detention (e.g., physical obstruction or authoritative demands).

Alternatively, the court found the evidence would have been admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the minimal intrusion and good faith of the police.

Peck was subsequently convicted of possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking.

The court delivered reasons on sentencing for convictions of possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a significant consecutive sentence, merging with a pre-existing term, resulting in a substantial remnant sentence after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defence argued for a time-served sentence, citing mitigating factors including the offender's lack of prior record at the time of the index offences and alleged hardship during incarceration.

The court, emphasizing the principles of deterrence and denunciation, particularly in the context of the ongoing drug epidemic, found the Crown's proposed sentence proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the offender's culpability, rejecting the defence's arguments for a lesser sentence.

The accused was convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a person under 14, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The court applied the doctrine of recent possession to find knowledge of the stolen vehicle.

For the attempted abduction, the court found the accused's repeated attempts to lure the child into his car constituted enticement with intent to deprive parents of possession.

The mischief charge was upheld as the accused's conduct interfered with the victim's enjoyment of the public park.

Criminal harassment was proven as the accused's repeated communication caused the victim to reasonably fear for her safety, and the accused was reckless as to whether his conduct would cause harassment.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically evidence obtained from a warrantless search of a laptop and subsequent searches conducted under warrants for a vehicle and inmate property.

The court found the warrantless laptop search to be a serious Charter breach due to reckless disregard for rights, leading to the exclusion of observations made from the laptop.

However, evidence obtained from the search of a vehicle and the applicant's inmate property vault, which were conducted under warrants, was admitted.

The court reasoned that the connection between the initial laptop breach and the subsequent warrant searches was attenuated, the privacy expectation in the vehicle was minimal, and the evidence from the vehicle was independently discoverable.

The appellant, Joshua Normand, sought leave to appeal a four-year global sentence imposed for mischief, criminal harassment, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and unsafe storage of a firearm.

The appellant, who is Metis, argued the sentencing judge failed to apply the principle of restraint and did not give sufficient weight to mitigating factors, including his Gladue report.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence was fit, noting the serious nature of the offences, the appellant's prior record, and that the sentencing judge had properly considered and applied the principle of restraint and mitigating factors, including the Gladue report.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

Katie Brittain was charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court assessed the admissibility of an utterance made by Brittain to police and the sufficiency of evidence for committal to trial.

The court found the utterance was not spontaneous, was made while Brittain was detained/arrested and uncauioned, and therefore not voluntary and inadmissible.

Without the utterance, there was insufficient evidence to establish knowledge, possession, and control of the seized drugs.

Consequently, the accused was discharged.

The applicant, Jahvar Green, charged with multiple firearms offences, brought a pre-trial application under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a firearm found in a car he was driving.

He argued arbitrary detention (s. 9) due to racial profiling and unreasonable search/use of force (ss. 7, 8).

The court found no racial profiling, as the officer did not see the applicant's race before the initial interaction.

The court also ruled that no detention occurred when the applicant fled from the officer's initial signal to stop, as there was no submission or acquiescence.

Detention began lawfully when the applicant was directed to stop in a Starbucks drive-thru.

The court further found the officer's belief that a firearm was in a satchel was objectively reasonable, justifying the search and use of force.

The application to exclude the firearm was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit four statements from a deceased witness (J.T.) at a preliminary hearing under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the "prima facie air of reliability" test to determine admissibility.

It found the portions of J.T.'s statements related to the kidnapping credible and trustworthy due to corroborating evidence, despite procedural deficiencies in statement-taking.

However, the portions related to drug possession and the identification of "Z" were deemed unreliable and were excised, as J.T.'s account was inconsistent and self-serving regarding her involvement with drugs.

The court affirmed its power to excise unreliable portions of a statement.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to sexual interference against a very young child in a public washroom and possession of a very large collection of child pornography.

The court applied the guidance in Friesen on the gravity of sexual offences against children and reviewed Ontario authorities emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences.

Exceptionally punitive presentence custody conditions during repeated institutional lockdowns were treated under the Marshall clarification of Summers and Duncan, with 1.5:1 statutory credit applied and the harsh conditions considered as mitigation in fixing sentence.

The joint submission on the sexual interference count was accepted, concurrent custodial terms were imposed, and lengthy ancillary orders followed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm arising from an altercation at a bush party.

At trial, the appellant claimed self-defence, but the trial judge rejected his testimony and convicted him.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred by relying on ungrounded common-sense assumptions about human behaviour to reject the appellant's testimony and by failing to consider corroborative defence evidence before concluding the appellant was not credible.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the respondent, Danny Francisco Correa, following his convictions for voyeurism, attempted sexual assault, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Crown also requested a determinate sentence and a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The respondent opposed the dangerous offender designation, arguing that the facts were ambiguous and that he did not pose a substantial risk of reoffence, suggesting a provincial sentence followed by probation.

The court found the respondent to be a dangerous offender, citing his demonstrated failure to control sexual impulses, the escalation in seriousness of his offences, and his lack of insight into his mental and sexological disorders (schizophrenia and pedohebephilia).

The court imposed a determinate sentence of two years in penitentiary (in addition to 2.5 years of pre-sentence custody) and a 10-year long-term supervision order, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a SOIRA order for life, and a 10-year firearm prohibition.

The decision emphasized the necessity of a supervised, compulsory treatment environment in a penitentiary due to the respondent's history of non-compliance and denial of his issues, concluding that a lesser measure would not adequately protect the public.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, applied to vary his bail conditions to delete the house arrest requirement after nearly two years of compliance.

The Crown opposed the variation.

The court recognized the applicant's good track record but noted the seriousness of the charges.

The court crafted a compromise, modifying the house arrest condition to allow the applicant to leave the residence with written permission from his surety, subject to a curfew and other conditions.

The appellant sought leave to appeal a global sentence of 23.5 months' incarceration followed by three years' probation for four counts of breach of probation.

The appellant had 12 prior convictions for breaching no-contact orders relating to his former spouse and son.

The sentencing judge found the appellant incorrigible and focused on specific deterrence and protection of the victims.

The Court of Appeal found no error, holding that the sentence was not demonstrably unfit and that a significant jump in sentence length was justified to protect the victims and deter the appellant.

The offender was convicted of possession of a restricted firearm, a prohibited over-capacity magazine, and possession of cocaine and heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the drug operation and the presence of a firearm, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and strong family support.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4 years' imprisonment, with the firearm offences to be served consecutively to the drug offences.

The offender received enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions and strict bail conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of 631 days.