John Holmes

The applicants brought a motion seeking an order to confirm the beneficial ownership of specific lands.

The court reviewed the affidavit evidence and was satisfied that the requested order was appropriate, concluding that Iva Zimmer was the sole beneficial owner of the described property at the time of her death.

The court affirmed paragraphs 2 and 3 of its prior order dated January 4, 2020, incorporating the requested paragraphs from the draft order.

The accused psychiatrist was tried on multiple counts of sexual assault and one count of extortion arising from alleged sexual activity with a patient in connection with disability-benefit paperwork.

The court held that the case turned on credibility and applied heightened caution to the complainant's evidence because of significant crimes of dishonesty, admitted lies to police, and a deliberate plan to manufacture supporting evidence through a staged incident and coordinated false testimony.

Although the complainant correctly identified a physical characteristic of the accused, the court found that this had only limited confirmatory value.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

This is a reverse onus judicial interim release (bail) hearing for FMD, charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine and unlawfully import and traffic firearms across the Windsor-Detroit international border.

The Crown presented extensive audio and audio/video intercepted evidence from Project Kirby, a police investigation involving a paid police agent and undercover officers operating a covert store.

The evidence demonstrated FMD's role as the orchestrator and organizer of a sophisticated criminal enterprise involving multiple cocaine transactions totaling over 1.5 pounds and the trafficking of operational handguns.

The court found the Crown's case overwhelmingly strong and detained FMD on all three grounds: primary (flight risk), secondary (public protection), and tertiary (public confidence in the administration of justice).

The accused was charged with attempt to commit murder.

During trial, a voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of statements made by the accused to police.

The accused had voluntarily contacted police to report historical homicides allegedly committed by his father and attended the police station voluntarily.

During questioning, the accused disclosed that he had brought his father to a river with the intention of killing him by throwing him in, but did not proceed because the river was frozen.

The court found that while the initial statements were voluntary, the police breached the accused's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter when they continued questioning after the accused disclosed the assault element of the attempted murder.

However, the court admitted the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the police acted in good faith, the breach was not deliberate or flagrant, and the evidence would have been obtained in any event from third-party witnesses who corroborated the accused's statements.