Jennifer Campitelli

In this criminal trial for harassment under s. 264(1) of the Criminal Code, the court considered whether surreptitious video recording of a complainant’s residence constituted “watching” under s. 264(2)(c).

Rejecting a narrow interpretation requiring continuous physical presence, the court adopted a purposive approach that accounted for technological surveillance and held the actus reus was complete when the accused intentionally installed and used a covert camera to capture the interior living space.

The court found the complainant was harassed and reasonably feared for her safety upon discovering the covert recordings in her home.

The court further held the mens rea was established because the accused would have been subjectively aware that covertly watching a person’s residence would cause harassment.

A finding of guilt was entered on Count #1.

This decision addresses an application to stay proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to alleged unreasonable delay in trial.

The accused, Brian Kumar, faced multiple fraud charges arising from the same investigation, with charges laid at different times and later joined.

The court carefully analyzed the total delay from the first information sworn, the defence-caused delay including explicit 11(b) waivers and adjournments, and the Crown's conduct.

The judge found that the majority of the delay was caused or waived by the defence, including delays related to retaining counsel and scheduling judicial pre-trials.

The net delay was calculated to be below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

The application for a stay was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Andrea Grebenc’s application for a judicial recount in the electoral district of Burlington, finding she failed to establish a prima facie case that a recount would change the election outcome.

The court emphasized the strict statutory timelines under section 71(1) of the Elections Act requiring recount applications to be brought and heard within four days of official tabulation.

Despite credible evidence from a scrutineer regarding improperly rejected ballots, the net difference in votes was only one, insufficient to justify a recount.

The decision underscores the importance of judicial discretion in balancing public confidence in election finality with the need for accuracy.

The accused, Raymond Santos Escutin, brought an application alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude breath samples.

The court found a breach of the accused's section 10(b) right to counsel due to an arbitrary delay by the police officer in providing rights and caution, exacerbated by the officer's misunderstanding of the "without delay" requirement and eliciting incriminating information during the delay.

Applying the R. v. Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the state's conduct and the impact on the accused's Charter interests outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence, leading to the exclusion of the breath samples.

The accused, M.D., faced multiple charges including sexual assault and assault against the complainant, A.E., his former spouse.

The complainant alleged four separate incidents of physical and sexual assault between 2017 and 2018.

The defence argued that the complainant fabricated the allegations due to ongoing family court matters and was not a credible witness.

The court found the complainant's evidence to be intentionally evasive, implausible, and dishonest, lacking internal consistency and external corroboration.

Conversely, the court found the accused's evidence to be thoughtful, clear, and honest, corroborated by police testimony.

Consequently, the court found the accused not guilty on all counts.

The accused, Stephen Jones, was charged with sexual assault (s. 271 Criminal Code) and sexual touching of a young person in a position of trust (s. 153(1)(a) Criminal Code).

The complainant, A.D., aged 17, alleged non-consensual sexual contact by Mr. Jones, her 60-year-old softball coach and father figure.

The court found A.D. to be a credible and reliable witness, whose testimony was corroborated by text messages and a letter from Mr. Jones expressing regret and acknowledging a breach of trust.

The court found that Mr. Jones intentionally touched A.D. for a sexual purpose without her consent, and that a relationship of trust existed, given the age gap, his role as coach and father figure, and the control he exercised.

Mr. Jones was found guilty on both counts.

Davide Manganiello was charged with possession of child pornography.

Halton Regional Police executed a search warrant at his residence and seized a Lenovo desktop computer containing child pornography files.

The sole issue at trial was whether Mr. Manganiello was in possession of these files.

The defence argued that multiple individuals had access to his unlocked computer and apartment, suggesting someone else could have downloaded the files.

The court found the accused's testimony to be vague, inconsistent, and unbelievable, rejecting his defence theory as implausible.

Based on the circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that Mr. Manganiello was in possession of the child pornography files and found him guilty.

The accused, R.M., faced multiple charges including assault, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault stemming from incidents with the complainant, A.J., following their separation.

The court dismissed one assault charge (Count #2) under the de minimis non curat lex defence, finding the contact trivial.

R.M. was found not guilty of unlawful confinement (Count #3) as the complainant was not deprived of freedom for a significant period.

For three sexual assault charges (Counts #4, #5, #6, #8), the court found R.M. not guilty of sexual assault.

Specifically, for Counts #4 and #8, R.M. was found guilty of the lesser included offence of assault simpliciter, as the non-consensual contact was assaultive but not sexual in nature.

For Count #7, R.M. was found guilty of sexual assault, as the intentional, non-consensual contact clearly violated the complainant's sexual integrity.

The accused, Mohammed Shaikh, faced charges of impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights under sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude breath samples.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, and the breath demand was valid, not violating section 8.

The court also found no unreasonable delay in facilitating the right to counsel under section 10(b), as police acted reasonably given safety and privacy concerns.

Consequently, the Charter applications were dismissed, the breath samples were admitted, and the accused was found guilty on both counts of impaired operation and over 80.

The accused, David Eyong-Eyong, brought an application seeking an order to compel the Crown to call specific eyewitnesses or, alternatively, for the court to call them.

The defence argued that the Crown's failure to call these witnesses adversely impacted trial fairness, especially given the lack of audio in video evidence forming the crux of the Crown's case.

The Crown opposed, asserting prosecutorial discretion and arguing that judicial intervention was only warranted for abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had not met the onus for intervention on any standard of review and that the circumstances were not exceptional enough to impact trial fairness, particularly as the defence would have the opportunity to call and examine these witnesses.

The accused, S.J., pleaded guilty to four counts (6, 7, 8, 9) and proceeded to trial on four others (1, 2, 3, 4) involving the complainant, M.B., with whom he was in an intimate partner relationship.

The trial focused on allegations of sexual assault (Count 1), assault causing bodily harm (Count 2), mischief (Count 3) related to a September 2015 incident, and a later assault (Count 4) from May 2021.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court found M.B.'s evidence regarding the 2015 incident credible and reliable, while rejecting S.J.'s testimony as inconsistent and unbelievable.

Consequently, S.J. was found guilty of sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm for the 2015 incident.

For the 2021 allegations, M.B.'s evidence was deemed credible but unreliable due to internal inconsistencies and implausibility, leading to S.J.'s acquittal on the mischief and May 2021 assault charges.

The accused, Russell Collins, was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80mg.

The defence challenged the officer's grounds for demanding a breath sample and the Crown's proof of a system calibration test.

The court found the officer's subjective grounds for suspicion were objectively reasonable, dismissing the Charter challenge.

The court also determined that the Crown had proven the calibration test was conducted with a certified alcohol standard, despite an ambiguous notation, by considering the totality of the evidence.

Consequently, the accused was found guilty as charged.

The accused, Craig Grant, faced six counts related to the possession of a firearm, an extended magazine, and ammunition, following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The sole issue at trial was possession, which the Crown sought to prove through circumstantial evidence.

The defence proposed an alternative theory, suggesting another individual present in the residence could have quickly placed the items in the accused's satchel and nightstand upon police entry.

The court found the accused's testimony to be incredible and unreliable.

After assessing the circumstantial evidence and the defence's alternative theory, the court found the defence's explanation implausible due to insufficient time for the alleged actions to occur during the police entry.

Consequently, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was in possession of the seized items and found him guilty on all counts.

Dwayne Thomas, a correctional officer, was found guilty of sexual assault (vaginal penetration of an inmate under his direct supervision) and breach of trust.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the abuse of authority, and the assault occurring in a private area beyond surveillance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's positive community relationships and support.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of six and a half years in penitentiary, with concurrent sentences for both offences.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a 10-year s. 109 order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

Dwayne Thomas, a correctional officer, was charged with sexual assault and breach of trust involving an inmate, J.S., at the Vanier Centre for Women.

J.S. alleged non-consensual vaginal intercourse in a shower area, providing pants with the accused's semen as evidence.

Thomas claimed the encounter was consensual and initiated by J.S., involving manual masturbation, not intercourse.

The court found J.S. to be a credible witness and Thomas's testimony unbelievable and evasive.

The court concluded that J.S. did not consent to the sexual contact, and Thomas's actions constituted a serious breach of his public trust as a correctional officer.

Thomas was found guilty on both counts.

The accused, D.S., was charged with unlawful confinement and sexual assault.

The complainant, L.S., alleged D.S. forcibly confined her and digitally penetrated her vagina without consent.

D.S. claimed the sexual contact was consensual and denied confinement, suggesting L.S. fabricated allegations to gain an advantage in family law proceedings.

The court found L.S.'s evidence credible and corroborated by text messages, while D.S.'s testimony was deemed unbelievable and illogical.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that D.S. committed both offences without consent.

The applicant challenged the issuance of a search warrant and his subsequent arrest, arguing violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The application sought to exclude seized evidence, including a handgun, cocaine, and currency, under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant, applying principles of warrant review, and found that the authorizing justice had reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of drug-related offenses would be found at the specified address.

The court concluded that the observed interactions were consistent with drug transactions and that the applicant's connection to the address supported the probability of finding evidence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no Charter violations were found.

The Crown sought to introduce prior discreditable conduct, specifically youth sexual assault allegations, against the accused, J.M., at trial.

The application was based on the allegations being relevant to proving the actus reus by establishing motive and a pattern of behaviour, including "grooming." The court dismissed the application, finding that the prejudicial effect of the dated and inflammatory youth allegations, particularly given a ten-year break in contact between the parties, outweighed their probative value.

The court emphasized the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, including a "trial within a trial."