Jim Cruess

The moving party sought leave to appeal his fraud conviction under the Securities Act.

He had been acquitted at trial, but the summary conviction appeal judge entered a conviction, finding the trial judge erred in requiring proof of actual loss caused by detrimental reliance.

The Court of Appeal denied leave on the issue of the standard for causation for fraud, finding the law well-settled.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal on the question of whether the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Hodgson modifies the test for an appellate court to substitute a conviction for an acquittal in the context of a Provincial Offences Act prosecution.

The Ontario Securities Commission appealed the acquittal of Stephan Katmarian on four counts of securities violations related to the promotion of Peblik Inc., a cryptocurrency token purportedly backed by the Thierry Mine.

The trial judge acquitted Katmarian on all counts.

On appeal, the Superior Court allowed the appeal on Count 1 (fraud), finding the trial judge erred in law regarding the element of deprivation by requiring proof of detrimental reliance rather than risk of deprivation.

The Court dismissed the appeals on Counts 2 (misleading statements to the Commission), 3 (unregistered trading in securities), and 4 (distribution without prospectus).

The Court entered a conviction on Count 1 and remanded for sentencing.

The accused, Luz Adriana Gonzalez-Valbuena, pleaded guilty to ten counts of human trafficking, one global count of receiving material benefit from human trafficking, and eight counts of withholding travel documents for the purpose of human trafficking.

The court considered the sophisticated and industrial-scale nature of the labour trafficking scheme, which exploited vulnerable Mexican foreign nationals over four years, involving threats, illegal deductions, and substandard living conditions.

Aggravating factors included the duration, number of victims (21), severe victim impact, and the accused's prior criminal record.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, the accused's own history as a victim of sexual trafficking, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Crown sought 11 years custody, while the defence sought 6-7 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years custody, minus presentence custody credit.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought an application to admit a compilation of surveillance video recordings.

The compilation combined footage from the scene of the shooting and a subsequent location, and included enhancements such as spotlights and magnifiers.

The defence objected, arguing the compilation and enhancements could unduly influence the jury.

The court held that the compilation and spotlight enhancements were admissible, as they were substantially accurate and assisted the trier of fact without causing prejudice.

The use of a magnifier on the accused's clothing was excluded pending further evidence on whether it altered the image.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with a knife, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with a recognizance following a violent home invasion.

The court considered the offender's youthful age, mental health issues, and background of systemic racism and abuse as mitigating factors, balanced against the severe aggravating factors of the planned, violent group attack on a vulnerable family.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, granting 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody and an additional 7 months credit for harsh lockdown conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in 5 years left to serve.

During a jury trial for first degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce recognition evidence from five witnesses to identify the accused in surveillance videos.

The witnesses, including a police officer and four security guards, had prior interactions with the accused in the community.

The court applied the test for non-expert opinion evidence of identity, finding that each witness had a sufficient prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him.

The court rejected arguments that the evidence was overly prejudicial or tainted by the witnesses' knowledge of the investigation.

The Crown's application to adduce the recognition evidence was granted.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to admit a Resident Information Form for an apartment unit as a business record under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The accused objected, arguing the form was not created in the ordinary course of business, contained double hearsay, and lacked threshold reliability.

The court dismissed the objections, finding the form was routinely collected and relied upon by property management, satisfying the statutory requirements for admissibility.

The form was admitted into evidence.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a third-party records application seeking police records relating to an alleged co-party to advance a third-party suspect defence.

The court held that occurrence and arrest reports from the investigating agency (Toronto Police) where the alleged co-party is a suspect or accused are first-party disclosure under Stinchcombe.

Records from a non-investigating agency (Niagara Regional Police) met the 'likely relevant' threshold under O'Connor and were ordered produced to the court for review.

The Crown moved for a mistrial in a jury trial for multiple charges of bank robbery due to an unprecedented six-month hiatus caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defence opposed, seeking an adjournment.

The court granted the mistrial, finding that the prolonged interruption compromised the jury's ability to fairly recall oral testimony and engage with the trial, thereby jeopardizing the fairness of the proceedings.

The court emphasized that the interests of expediency could not trump the goal of a fair trial.

The accused was charged with firearm offences and obstructing a police officer following a shooting.

The police detained the accused and others in an apartment under exigent circumstances.

After the accused provided false names, he was arrested for obstruction of justice.

The police subsequently conducted a warrantless search of his cellphone, discovering photos of him holding a firearm used in the shooting.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found multiple Charter violations, including an unlawful cellphone search, an unreasonable strip search, failure to file a Report to Justice for the cellphone extraction, and unreasonable delays in informing the accused of his firearm charges and facilitating his right to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court concluded that the admission of the photos would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

Skot Tennant was found guilty of six counts related to firearm possession and breach of prohibition orders after a trial.

He was found with a .32 calibre handgun and ammunition in a backpack at another person's apartment, while subject to a s. 109 Criminal Code prohibition order.

The Crown sought a 5.5-year sentence, while the defence sought 3.5 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record with violent offences, taking a firearm into another's home, and repeated disregard for court orders.

Mitigating factors included an eight-year period without criminal involvement, work efforts, strong family support, and no evidence of firearm discharge or threat.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4.5 years, reduced by 99 days for pre-sentence custody and stringent release conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 3 years and 266 days.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, forfeiture of the firearm, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

The offender was convicted of manslaughter after shooting his friend with an illegal, homemade 'slap-gun' during a dispute over a vehicle.

The court found the offender's moral blameworthiness to be high, given his possession of the prohibited firearm to protect his drug dealing business and his failure to disengage when he recognized the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to 10.5 years in prison and, finding exceptional circumstances demonstrating a need for specific deterrence and rehabilitation, ordered that he serve half of his sentence before becoming eligible for parole.

The accused, Muse Abdirahim, brought a severance application under s. 591(3)(a) of the Criminal Code for three sets of armed robbery charges.

The Crown resisted, intending to use similar fact evidence.

The court granted severance in part, ordering a separate trial for charges related to the second incident (Mac's Milk) due to the objective reasonableness of the accused's intention not to testify and the tenuous nature of the Crown's similar fact evidence for that incident.

However, severance was denied for the first (Stay Inn) and third (Cell Phone store) incidents, as DNA evidence strongly linked them, the similar fact application was deemed viable, and concerns regarding trial efficiency, risk of inconsistent verdicts, and victim inconvenience outweighed the prejudice to the accused.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a Corbett application to exclude his prior criminal record from evidence should he choose to testify.

The accused intended to argue self-defence and accident.

The court balanced the probative value of the record against the prejudicial effect of propensity reasoning.

The court excluded the accused's youth offences to prevent undue prejudice but permitted the Crown to cross-examine the accused on his adult convictions for assault, theft, drug trafficking, and dangerous driving, with a limiting instruction to the jury.

During jury selection, a sworn juror advised the court that he was an electrician foreman and his absence would prevent apprentices from working, causing hardship.

The court considered whether the juror could be discharged and replaced before the trial commenced.

Applying section 644(1.1) of the Criminal Code, the court found the juror's circumstances constituted 'other reasonable cause' and discharged him, allowing for a replacement to be selected from the panel.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal at the close of the Crown's case, arguing there was no evidence of the requisite intent for murder.

The defence contended that a 1.5-minute gap in the circumstantial evidence meant the jury would have to speculate on intent.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the common sense inference that a sane and sober person intends the natural consequences of their actions.

The court found that firing a shotgun at close range into the victim's lower torso provided a sufficient evidentiary foundation for a properly instructed jury to infer the intent required for murder.

The accused, a repeat offender with a history of firearm offences, was convicted of discharging a restricted firearm and possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

After being rebuffed by a woman outside an after-hours party, he discharged a handgun twice into the air.

At the time, he was subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition order.

The Crown sought 12 to 14 years, while the defence sought 6.5 to 8 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 10 years (7 years and 3 months net of pre-trial custody).

The court declined to grant enhanced pre-sentence credit for lockdowns, finding the conditions were not particularly harsh.

The accused was charged with discharging a restricted or prohibited firearm and related offences after allegedly firing a handgun twice in the air outside an after-hours party.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, primarily video surveillance showing the accused raising his arm, the synchronized reactions of bystanders ducking and running, and the discovery of a single shell casing in the area.

The court evaluated the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony on firearm operation and the non-assertive conduct of bystanders, and found the accused guilty on all counts.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct towards his wife in a domestic sexual assault and common assault trial.

The court applied the two-part test for admissibility, finding the evidence relevant to provide context for the relationship, demonstrate animus, establish motive, and explain the complainant's delayed reporting.

The court concluded that the probative value of this contextual evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, particularly as the discreditable conduct was less serious than the charges.

The application was granted, allowing the evidence to be admitted at trial.

The defendant was charged with mischief, escape from lawful custody, assault causing bodily harm, obstructing a peace officer, and two counts of assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist lawful arrest, arising from an incident at Union Station where he attempted to board a departing GO Transit train.

The Crown abandoned the mischief charge mid-trial.

The court found that the defendant's arrest was unlawful because the transit officers lacked reasonable grounds to believe he had committed mischief.

The court rejected key aspects of the officers' testimony as unreliable and contradicted by video evidence.

Finding the arrest unlawful, the defendant's physical resistance was justified, and he was acquitted of all charges.