John K. Lefurgey

Two accused were tried on numerous drug‑related offences including conspiracies to import cocaine, conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime, trafficking, and participation in a criminal organization.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications detailing several alleged conspiracies, including the “Flowers”, “Medivac”, and “Wooden Shoes” schemes.

The court held that mere discussions of criminal plans do not establish conspiracy without proof of an agreement to commit the unlawful act.

One conspiracy to import cocaine through a medical evacuation aircraft was proven against both accused, while other alleged import conspiracies were not established.

The court also convicted one accused of conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime and several trafficking and possession‑for‑the‑purpose offences, while dismissing the criminal organization charge for lack of evidence of structured organization.

A priority dispute arose between a building mortgagee and construction lien claimants over funds paid into court to vacate liens.

The plaintiff lien claimant argued the priority extended to the full amount owed by the owner to the general contractor.

The mortgagee argued priority was limited to the 10 percent statutory holdback.

The court held that paying money into court to vacate a lien does not alter the priority scheme under the Construction Lien Act, and the lien claimants' priority over the mortgagee was limited to the statutory holdback amount.

The Crown appealed the sentences imposed on two youthful offenders who pled guilty to a home invasion robbery.

One respondent received two years less a day and the other received 21 months, both followed by three years' probation.

The trial judge emphasized the respondents' significant rehabilitative progress while on strict bail conditions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the sentences were lenient, the trial judge made no error in principle and the sentences were not manifestly unfit given the strong prospects for rehabilitation.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario sought to revoke the respondent's liquor licence for violations including permitting intoxicated patrons and drug trafficking on the premises.

Following a hearing where the violations were established, the Board determined the appropriate sanction.

The Board found the offences serious, noting open drug trafficking and severely intoxicated patrons, but declined to revoke the licence.

Instead, the Board ordered a 45-day licence suspension and imposed strict conditions, including mandatory searches of patrons, increased security, and cooperation with local police.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for a serious assault where he acted in concert with a co-accused to beat the victim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no errors in the trial judge's instructions on self-defence or prior inconsistent statements, nor in the refusal to adjourn the trial.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge did not err in principle by refusing a conditional sentence or in the term of imprisonment imposed.

The appellant was convicted of incest and indecent assault following a jury trial.

He appealed his convictions, arguing the trial judge erred in admitting prior consistent statements without a limiting instruction, allowing witness statements as exhibits, and charging the jury on the wrong offence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made serious errors regarding the prior consistent statements and exhibits.

The Court declined to apply the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, allowed the appeal, and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment signed by the Registrar.

The Court of Appeal found that the Registrar lacked jurisdiction to sign the default judgment under Rule 19.04 because the claim for 'approximately $450,000' in damages for conversion and fraud was not a liquidated demand.

The default judgment was set aside with leave for the respondent to proceed before a judge under Rule 19.05.

However, the court refused to set aside the noting of pleadings closed due to the appellant's intentional refusal to defend.

The appellant appealed a jury conviction for attempted murder arising from a shooting in which the complainant survived a gunshot wound to the head.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge’s instructions on accidental discharge and intent were confusing, legally flawed, and improperly focused on capacity when capacity was not in issue.

The court further found that the absence of a sharp limiting instruction on highly prejudicial bad character evidence, including drug use, trafficking, gang affiliation, and illegal handgun possession, undermined trial fairness.

The court also noted improper Crown submissions inviting speculation on motive and planning.

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