John North

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000.

As a senior accountant at Payfare Inc., a financial technology company, the offender exploited a loophole in the company's banking portal to fraudulently transfer approximately $1.27 million to accounts in his name over a ten-month period.

The offender used the funds primarily for gambling, leisure, travel, and personal expenses.

Upon discovery, approximately $143,000 was recovered.

The offender subsequently entered into a civil settlement agreement with Payfare requiring payment of $85,000 over five years.

The court imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment, a four-year prohibition order under section 380.2 of the Criminal Code, and a restitution order of $100,000 to the insurance company.

The accused was charged with six counts of refusing to comply with a boundary condition of a probation order contrary to s. 733.1(1) of the Criminal Code, and one count of failing to attend court on September 26, 2016, contrary to s. 145(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all counts.

The matter proceeded as a blended Charter application and trial.

The accused raised Charter arguments under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 11(d), arguing violations of his rights.

The court found one s. 9 violation but dismissed the Charter application, finding no basis for exclusion of evidence or stay of proceedings.

On the trial proper, the court found the accused guilty on all seven counts after determining that the Crown had proven all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, including the requisite mens rea for each offence.

The applicant sought disclosure of a drug recognition expert's (DRE) rolling log, which documents all drug recognition evaluations conducted by the DRE.

The Crown opposed disclosure, arguing that rolling logs are clearly irrelevant and that disclosure is prohibited by section 320.36 of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the rolling log was clearly irrelevant because the DRE's opinion was corroborated by toxicological analysis.

The court also held that section 320.36 does not prohibit disclosure of rolling logs, but found disclosure unnecessary in this case due to the corroboration.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and failing to comply with a term of a recognizance.

The assault involved striking a vulnerable 66-year-old woman with an extremely low IQ in the face, causing significant bruising and swelling.

Days after release on bail, the offender breached a no-contact condition by approaching the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by 3 years probation, with credit for 305 days of pre-sentence custody at the 1.5:1 ratio plus an additional 5 months credit for harsh detention conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, resulting in 1 month remaining to serve.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order.

The accused challenged the validity of search warrants issued for his apartment and vehicle on Charter grounds, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds to justify the warrants.

The Crown conceded that the redacted ITO was insufficient and sought to rely on unredacted portions protected by informer privilege.

The court applied the Debot criteria to assess whether information from a confidential informant, combined with police investigation and the accused's criminal record, established reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused unlawfully possessed a firearm.

The court found the information sufficiently compelling, credible, and corroborated to justify the warrant issuance.

The accused's section 8 Charter rights were not infringed.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of search warrants on three apartments and a motor vehicle.

The accused challenged the admissibility of evidence under sections 8, 9, 10(b), and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's section 9 rights were not violated as police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest.

However, the court found violations of section 8 rights because the Information to Obtain, as amplified on review, failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence would be found at the target apartment.

The court also found a violation of section 10(b) rights due to an unjustified delay in providing access to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol over the legal limit.

The matter proceeded by way of a blended Charter application and trial.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and breath demand under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, and also alleged a violation of the right to counsel of choice under section 10(b).

The court found that while the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and make the breath demand, the accused's section 10(b) rights were violated when police failed to adequately facilitate contact with counsel of choice and instead funneled the accused toward duty counsel.

The breath samples were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter as their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol over the legal limit.

The defence brought a Charter application arguing that the police violated section 8 rights by making a breath demand without reasonable and probable grounds as required by section 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The court found no Charter violation, as the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was driving while impaired within the three-hour window.

However, on the trial proper, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to drive was impaired at the time of driving, despite proving the over 80 charge through breath sample evidence.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and failing to comply with a breath demand after her vehicle collided with a street sweeper.

At the police station, the accused repeatedly failed to provide a suitable breath sample despite numerous attempts and clear instructions.

The court found the accused's failure to provide a sample was deliberate and feigned, satisfying the mens rea for the refusal charge.

The court also drew an adverse inference from the refusal and, combined with circumstantial evidence including the unexplained collision, slurred speech, and odour of alcohol, found the accused guilty of impaired driving.

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking 1.08 grams of powder cocaine to an undercover police officer.

The offender committed the offence to support an addiction to online gaming.

The court found that the offender's meaningful steps towards rehabilitation, gainful employment, and the connection between the offence and his addiction constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 30 months of probation, prioritizing rehabilitation and restraint over general deterrence and denunciation.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and agreed that facts related to a third robbery count could be considered in sentencing.

Over four days in April 2018, the offender committed three bank robberies using note-passing methods without weapons or disguises, obtaining modest amounts of cash.

The court imposed a global sentence of six years imprisonment with concurrent sentences on the two guilty counts, applying principles of denunciation, general deterrence, and public protection while considering mitigating factors including the offender's guilty plea, addiction and mental health issues, and prospects for rehabilitation.