John North

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of child luring after communicating online with an undercover officer posing as a 14-year-old girl.

The communications were highly sexualized and occurred over several weeks, though the offender never met the officer in person.

The court considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, guilty plea, rehabilitative efforts, and the significant collateral consequences of family separation due to his children's medical needs.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, 18 months' probation, and ancillary orders including a 6-year section 161 prohibition order.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeals against conviction of Mehendran Kandiah and Rhenu Jewellery Inc. for violating COVID-19 public health orders but allowed the sentence appeals, reducing the fines imposed.

The court found no loss of jurisdiction despite procedural irregularities and emphasized the importance of specific and general deterrence in regulatory offences, especially during a public health crisis.

The decision highlights the court's approach to jurisdictional challenges, the admissibility and impact of fresh financial evidence on sentencing, and the balancing of deterrence with proportionality and restraint in fines for corporate and individual offenders.

Brian O’Donnell pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and discharging a prohibited firearm with intent after shooting the victim, Lacramioara Flanagan, with a sawed-off shotgun from behind at close range.

The offences were premeditated and caused significant physical, emotional, and financial harm to the victim.

The Court considered the offender’s psychiatric and cognitive disorders, his criminal history, and the impact of harsh pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence imposed was 2859 days imprisonment before credit, with concurrent sentences and ancillary orders including DNA sampling and a no-contact order.

The applicant, who pleaded guilty in Washington State in 2014 to communication with a minor, sought an exemption from Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) obligations in Canada.

The Attorney General of Ontario had deemed his foreign offence equivalent to child luring.

The court, without deciding on the equivalence of the foreign offence, focused on whether the applicant met the criteria for exemption under the amended s. 490.02905(2)(c) or (d) of the Criminal Code.

Based on expert psychological assessment indicating a very low likelihood of re-offending, no prior criminal record, and significant personal hardship caused by SOIRA obligations (travel and employment restrictions), the court found that there was no connection between the obligation and SOIRA's purpose, and the impact on the applicant was grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The application for an exemption order was allowed.

The applicant, Taylor Javer, facing charges of accessing and possession of child pornography, brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence obtained from electronic devices seized under a search warrant.

The applicant argued that the search was conducted unreasonably due to a lack of detailed police notes, a sweeping search of all images/videos, and the failure to apply a date filter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while detailed notes are encouraged, their absence did not render the search unreasonable given the officer's credible testimony and the comprehensive LACE report.

The court also found the broad search of images/videos and the lack of a date filter reasonable, citing the nature of child pornography investigations and the unreliability of timestamps.

The offender, James Treloar, was found guilty after trial of accessing child pornography.

The Crown sought the maximum summary conviction sentence (two years less a day imprisonment) and various ancillary orders.

The defence sought a conditional discharge, conditional sentence, or intermittent sentence.

The court reviewed sentencing principles, aggravating and mitigating factors, and relevant case law on child pornography offences.

The judge rejected a conditional discharge, conditional sentence, and intermittent sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for such offences.

The court imposed a sentence of six months' imprisonment, to be followed by three years of probation, a DNA order, forfeiture of electronic devices, and a 10-year order under the Sexual Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA).

A 5-year order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code with internet restrictions was also imposed, but conditions related to contact with persons under 16 or positions of trust were not imposed, given the offender's low risk of re-offending and the absence of evidence of child contact.

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at an apartment and a vehicle, which resulted in the seizure of a loaded handgun and controlled substances.

The accused argued that the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to make full, frank, and fair disclosure, fabricated surveillance evidence, and relied on an unreliable confidential informant.

The court conducted a sub-facial review, excising some erroneous information and amplifying the ITO with omitted facts.

The court found that the affiant was occasionally sloppy but did not deliberately mislead the issuing justice.

Applying the Debot criteria, the court concluded that the confidential informant's tip was sufficiently compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court held that the amplified ITO provided reasonable grounds to issue the warrants and declined to exercise its residual discretion to set them aside, dismissing the application.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings based on alleged prosecutorial and police misconduct, arguing that the conduct breached his right to a fair trial under sections 7 and 24(1) of the Charter, or violated his right to make full answer and defence.

The court reviewed the legal principles for a stay of proceedings, including the two categories of abuse of process (trial fairness and residual category) and the three-part test from R. v. Babos.

The court found that while mistakes were made by the Crown and police regarding disclosure and a Zoom meeting incident, there was no deliberate misconduct.

The court concluded that the applicant's right to a fair trial was not infringed, nor was the integrity of the justice system undermined.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with accessing child pornography, brought an application under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The defence argued that the information to obtain (ITO) did not provide reasonable grounds for the warrant, specifically raising concerns about the staleness of the information.

The Crown contended that the ITO disclosed sufficient information.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that the ITO contained reasonable grounds upon which the issuing justice could have issued the search warrant, emphasizing that the nature of child pornography as non-consumable digital evidence affects the staleness analysis.

The accused were charged with firearm offences after police found a loaded handgun in a satchel inside a vehicle.

The police had arrested one of the accused on an outstanding warrant and subsequently searched the vehicle.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of their rights under ss. 7, 8, and 10(b), including claims of racial profiling, excessive force, unlawful search, delay in access to counsel, and lost CCTV evidence.

The court found that the police violated s. 7 by negligently losing CCTV footage, s. 8 by unlawfully searching the satchel without reasonable grounds, and s. 10(b) by delaying access to counsel and attempting to elicit evidence before the accused spoke to a lawyer.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the handgun and a knife found on the co-accused under s. 24(2).

Both accused were found not guilty on all counts.

The accused, Neil Mains, was charged with five Criminal Code offences related to child pornography found on a computer in his apartment.

The trial involved a Charter application and voluntariness voir dire for a post-arrest statement.

The court dismissed the Charter application and found the statement voluntary.

The central issues were the accused's knowledge and control of the child pornography and whether he was wilfully blind to making it available via a peer-to-peer network.

The court found the accused guilty of two counts of possession and two counts of accessing child pornography, but not guilty of making child pornography available, finding reasonable doubt regarding his knowledge or willful blindness of the sharing aspect.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, citing a total delay of 20.82 months.

The Crown argued that the COVID-19 pandemic, delayed disclosure, and personnel changes constituted exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no causal link between the pandemic and the delay, and noting that the Crown and police failed to provide timely disclosure.

The application was granted, and the charges were stayed.

The applicant sought the return of a 2018 Jeep Grand Cherokee seized by the Toronto Police Service, arguing that its continued detention was not required for investigation, trial, or forfeiture proceedings under s. 490(11) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the vehicle was used in an assault and exploitation, and intended to seek forfeiture if the accused (D.G.) was convicted.

The court found it had jurisdiction to hear the application, confirmed the applicant was the lawful owner and innocent of any complicity, and determined that the vehicle was not required for ongoing investigation or trial.

The court further concluded that any future forfeiture application by the Crown would inevitably be unsuccessful given the applicant's innocent third-party status under s. 490.4(3) of the Criminal Code.

The application for the return of the Jeep was allowed.

The Applicant, charged with sexual assault and other offences, sought a determination on whether electronic communications (text messages and photographs) in his possession constituted "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, thereby requiring a s. 278.92 application for their admissibility at trial.

The court found that, with the exception of specific content deemed "sexual activity" under s. 276(4), the electronic communications did not meet the definition of "record" as the Complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in them, considering the content and the nature of the relationships involved.

The applicant, charged with child pornography offences, sought to exclude evidence seized from his residence, alleging violations of his Charter rights under sections 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found no s. 8 violation regarding the police's use of automated systems (CPS/Shareaza LE) to identify and download files from his P2P shared folders, nor for arresting him without a Feeney warrant while lawfully executing a search warrant.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation because the officer-in-charge asked the applicant questions designed to elicit incriminating evidence before he had a reasonable opportunity to consult with counsel.

Despite this breach, applying the Grant factors, the court determined that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the seriousness of the alleged offences and the lack of a causal connection between the breach and the discovery of the evidence.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a stationary vehicle on the shoulder of Highway 401.

Police arrested him for impaired driving and demanded breath samples, which registered over the legal limit.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court dismissed the ss. 8 and 9 claims, finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found a s. 10(b) violation because a breath technician asked the accused standard booking questions with investigative value before he could consult duty counsel a second time.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the breath samples under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty of impaired operation and operating over 80.

The accused was charged with firearm and drug offences after police executed search warrants at an apartment and a vehicle.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a statement made to police and real evidence seized, alleging violations of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights and arguing the statement was involuntary.

The court found the statement was voluntary and that the police facilitated access to counsel at the first reasonable opportunity.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) violation occurred when police failed to restate the right to counsel after discovering drugs in the vehicle, which significantly changed the accused's jeopardy.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that excluding the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court analyzed the total delay, defence delay, and exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and the trial going longer than expected.

The court found that the net delay, after accounting for defence delay and exceptional circumstances, fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The applicant failed to demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that while the net delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling, the Crown successfully rebutted the presumption by establishing exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court also found that the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings and that the case did not take markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of approximately six grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000.

The Crown sought 30 months' imprisonment while the defence sought 18 months.

The court imposed 25 months' imprisonment before credit for pre-sentence custody, with enhanced credit of 15 months for harsh pre-sentence conditions (including COVID-19 lockdowns), resulting in an additional 10 months to be served.

A mandatory weapons prohibition under section 109 of the Criminal Code and a DNA order were imposed.

The court considered the offender's difficult background, addiction, Aboriginal ancestry, and the impact of COVID-19 detention conditions as mitigating factors, balanced against the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking and the offender's extensive criminal record.