John Christie

The 71-year-old accused pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution after police seized 500 marijuana plants and over 700 kilograms of processed cannabis from his property.

The accused and his spouse had significant neurological problems and limited income.

While the accused had a related criminal record and the seized drugs had an estimated value of nearly $1 million, the court found his moral blameworthiness lessened because he and his spouse possessed Health Canada licences that were either expired or in the spouse's name.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding it adequately met the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the unique circumstances.

This decision concerns a complex auto theft and revinning scheme involving ServiceOntario employees and a body shop operator.

The court found that Eric Johnson and Tonisha Baird conspired to traffic stolen vehicles and conceal their true ownership by using fraudulent or cloned VINs.

The evidence was largely circumstantial, including wiretaps, documents, and items seized during police searches.

Baird was found guilty of conspiracy, possession of property obtained by crime, and breach of trust.

Johnson was found guilty of conspiracy, trafficking, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence, the conduct of the accused, and the legal standards for each offence, ultimately finding that the only reasonable inference was guilt.

The defendant, Jordan Maxwell, was charged with sexual assault and threatening death.

The complainant alleged that Maxwell sexually assaulted her and threatened her life while she was babysitting his children.

Maxwell denied the allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant.

While finding the complainant more credible and believable than the defendant, the court noted inconsistencies and uncertainties in the complainant's evidence regarding timing and details, which prevented the Crown from proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide breath samples.

The defense argued multiple Charter breaches, including delayed advice of reason for arrest and right to counsel, failure to "hold off" questioning, and improper facilitation of counsel.

The court found breaches of section 10(a) (failure to immediately inform of reason for arrest) and section 10(b) (failure to "hold off" questioning), leading to the exclusion of the accused's admission about drinking.

Other alleged breaches were dismissed.

Despite the partial exclusion of evidence, the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.

The defendant, Gregory Walton, was sentenced after being found guilty of failing to comply with his Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) by testing positive for cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record and prior non-compliance with release conditions, and mitigating factors such as his stated commitment to rehabilitation and positive conduct under supervision.

The court emphasized the importance of the LTSO condition in managing the offender's risk of re-offence.

A sentence of 20 months incarceration (600 days jail) was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody and an additional 50 days for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

A DNA order was granted, and the victim surcharge was waived.

The defendant, subject to a Long Term Supervision Order, was charged with breaching conditions by testing positive for cocaine metabolite (BZE) in a urine sample.

The Crown presented evidence from Dynacare Labs scientists and forensic toxicologists.

The defence challenged the reliability of the urinalysis and proposed an alternative theory that the positive result was due to consumption of coca tea.

The court found the Dynacare records admissible and the urinalysis reliable.

The court rejected the coca tea defence theory as implausible due to lack of evidence regarding consumption proximate to the sample collection and lack of foundational support for the tea's composition.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was sentenced for possessing a loaded restricted firearm and dangerous controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including fentanyl.

The court balanced the objectives of denunciation and deterrence with the defendant's strong rehabilitative potential, youth, and community support.

Aggravating factors included the firearm's purpose (drug trade protection), the deadly nature and quantity of fentanyl, other drugs, motive of greed, bail breaches, and quick return to drug trade.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, first offender status, youth, community support, and excellent rehabilitative potential.

The global sentence was set at six years, reduced from an initial seven years to foster rehabilitation, less presentence custody.

The offender was convicted of possession of crack cocaine and possession of over two kilograms of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court found the offender acted as a distributor, packaging the cocaine for sale after a co-accused transported it from Toronto.

Considering the offender's significant criminal record and the large quantity of cocaine, the court imposed a sentence of eight years imprisonment.

The offender received 16 months of credit for time spent on strict house arrest bail conditions and the anticipated impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his incarceration.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to compel the Crown to disclose details regarding police "pointer car" designations, arguing its relevance to a Charter Section 9 arbitrary detention issue.

The applicant was detained solely because he was driving a vehicle designated as a "pointer car" which may have been an outdated and incorrect designation.

The court found the evidence concerning the purpose, implementation, and removal procedures of the pointer car designation system to be "obviously relevant" to assessing the constitutional validity of the detention.

The motion was allowed, and the Crown was ordered to disclose all requested information.

The Crown applied for the forfeiture of a $70,000 recognizance after the accused breached his bail conditions by violating his curfew and driving impaired.

The court found that both sureties had been diligent.

The court granted full relief from forfeiture to one surety because the Crown had unreasonably refused to allow her to supervise the accused at night, which might have prevented the breach.

The other surety was ordered to forfeit $10,000, receiving substantial relief due to her diligence and the Crown's role in preventing a more effective release plan.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to stand trial for possession of cocaine, ketamine, and oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000.

The defence conceded there was sufficient evidence for simple possession but argued the lack of expert evidence regarding drug quantities precluded committal for trafficking.

The court held that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the purpose of trafficking from the circumstantial evidence, including the presence of a digital scale, baggies, large amounts of hidden cash, and police observations of a suspected drug transaction.

The accused was committed to stand trial on all counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of opium for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought 12 months imprisonment plus ancillary orders, while the defence sought 90 days.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent sentence, finding that while denunciation and deterrence are important, rehabilitation of an addict-trafficker serves the public interest.

The court considered the accused's significant rehabilitative efforts, including methadone treatment and counselling, his lack of prior record, and the collateral consequences of deportation as a permanent resident.

The sentence was balanced to achieve custodial accountability while preserving ongoing addiction treatment.

The offender was convicted of importing approximately 15.85 kilograms of cocaine valued at $760,000 from the Dominican Republic.

The offender checked in luggage containing the drugs at the Dominican Republic airport but did not retrieve it upon arrival at Pearson Airport.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 8 years, less 9 months pre-trial custody credit, resulting in a net sentence of 7 years and 3 months.

The court also imposed a section 109 weapons prohibition order and a DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to offences related to a nighttime home invasion where he and an accomplice were masked and armed with a handgun.

The accused had a lengthy criminal record and was in breach of multiple court orders.

The court accepted a joint submission, sentencing the accused to six years in the penitentiary concurrent on several counts, plus 345 days of pre-trial custody credited as time served on another count, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused were charged with robbery, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, and breach of probation following a hotel room invasion.

The victims were two women who had recently started their own escort business, cutting out the accused and their associate.

The court found both accused guilty of robbery, as they participated in a joint plan to steal from the victims while one accused was armed with a baton.

One accused was found guilty of receiving a material benefit from sexual services due to his involvement in his girlfriend's escort business, while the other was acquitted of this charge as sharing drugs and alcohol did not constitute a material benefit.

The accused bound by probation was also found guilty of breaching it.

The defendant, Steven Venditello, brought an application under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stay fraud charges due to unreasonable delay.

The court found that the extensive delay of over seven years was primarily attributable to the defendant's deliberate and manipulative actions regarding legal representation and scheduling.

Applying the framework from R. v. Jordan and R. v. Coulter, the court calculated the net delay, after subtracting defence-attributable delay and an extraordinary circumstance, to be well below the 30-month threshold.

The application was dismissed, as the defendant failed to demonstrate that the remaining delay was unreasonable.

Applicants charged with serious drug trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging delay in trial.

The trial was scheduled approximately 29 months after charges were laid, well exceeding the 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that defence delay should be subtracted, bringing the net delay below the ceiling, or alternatively that exceptional circumstances applied.

The court found that the Crown's failure to provide timely disclosure, particularly the Information to Obtain the search warrant and surveillance materials, constituted the primary cause of delay.

The court rejected the Crown's characterization of defence delay and found no exceptional circumstances justified the delay.

The application was granted and proceedings were stayed.

The accused, Jonathon Leitch and Shawn Ball, were tried for drug possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

Leitch brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights against arbitrary detention (s. 9) and the right to counsel (s. 10(b)).

The court found that Leitch's s. 9 and s. 10(b) rights were violated, leading to the exclusion of methamphetamine evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, Leitch was acquitted on all four drug charges, and Ball was acquitted on the joint trafficking charge due to insufficient evidence of possession.

Moyi Wang was found guilty of two counts of possession of child pornography.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the images, and mitigating factors, such as his youth at the time of the offence, lack of criminal record, strong family support, and willingness to undergo treatment.

The court imposed a sentence of nine months incarceration, credited with seven days for time served, followed by three years of probation with specific conditions.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, forfeiture of seized computers, and registration on the National Sex Offender Registry for twenty years, along with a five-year prohibition under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, but declined a further internet prohibition under s. 161(d) as disproportionate.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences.

Police, wishing to protect an ongoing wiretap investigation, directed a traffic officer to conduct a pretext traffic stop of the accused, lie about the reason for the stop, and attempt to obtain consent to search his vehicle.

The accused was not informed of the true reason for his detention or his right to counsel.

When the accused tossed a bag to his wife, multiple officers rushed him, resulting in a physical altercation and broken ribs.

The court found egregious breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant and Regan frameworks, the court concluded that the deliberate police planning to bypass Charter protections constituted an abuse of process.

A stay of proceedings was ordered for all counts.