John Patrick Raftery

This decision addresses an application for a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, brought by Nicholas Aaron Martin and Mackenzie Doyle.

The applicants, charged with serious offences including robbery and pointing a firearm, argued that the delay in bringing their case to trial—over 52 months—exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the sources of delay, including the presence of multiple accused and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and found that the net delay still exceeded the ceiling.

The court ordered a stay of proceedings.

The offender, Stavros Tsoraklidis, was sentenced after being found guilty of assault with a weapon and administering a noxious substance, and pleading guilty to failing to attend court.

The charges arose from an incident where he pepper-sprayed a grocery store employee after uttering a homophobic slur.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a weapon, the homophobic slur, and a prior weapons conviction, alongside mitigating factors such as a gap in his criminal record and prospects for rehabilitation.

The defence sought a time-served sentence, requesting "Downes credit" for restrictive bail conditions.

The court granted one month's credit for house arrest and imposed a total sentence of seven months' jail, followed by a two-year probation order with conditions.

The accused, N.J., was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue was consent, assessed through the credibility and reliability of the complainant, J.H., and the accused.

The court rejected the accused's implausible testimony, finding it undermined his credibility.

Despite some minor inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, her testimony was found to be clear, concise, cogent, logical, and plausible, corroborated by text messages and a nurse practitioner's report.

The court found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and registered a conviction.

The defendant, Stavros Tsoraklidis, was charged with assault with a weapon and administering a noxious substance after spraying the complainant with pepper spray.

The central issue at trial was whether the defendant acted in self-defence.

The court found the defendant's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, particularly regarding his claim that the complainant threatened him with a boxcutter.

The court concluded that the defendant's actions were offensive and motivated by anger, not self-defence, and that the force used was disproportionate and unreasonable.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the conditions for lawful self-defence were not met.

The accused, R.C., faced a 6-count indictment for sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, luring, sexual assault, making child pornography, and possession of child pornography.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, police officers, the accused, and his wife.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, while rejecting the accused's and his wife's testimony as unreliable and dishonest.

The accused was found guilty of sexual interference, sexual assault, making child pornography, and possession of child pornography, but acquitted on invitation to sexual touching and luring due to insufficient detail or timing regarding the specific incidents and communications.

This sentencing decision concerns Andrew Wyvill, convicted of sexual interference with a 14-year-old complainant who was highly intoxicated and often unconscious.

The court detailed three instances of sexual violation and the profound physical and psychological impact on the victim and her family.

While acknowledging the offender's guilty plea and community support, the court found numerous aggravating factors, including the victim's extreme vulnerability, the repeated nature of the assaults, the offender's lack of understanding of consent, and his continued denial of guilt.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 2 years less one day, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and guided by recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence emphasizing increased sentences for child sexual abuse, the court rejected the defence's submission as "inappropriate and palpably offensive" and imposed a sentence of 30 months custody, along with a DNA order, a 10-year s. 109 order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

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.

Makara Cheung was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and having a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

He was found asleep in his running vehicle after a company holiday party, with high blood alcohol readings.

The defence argued he had no intention to drive and had arranged for his wife to pick him up, thus rebutting the presumption of care or control.

The court found the wife's testimony not credible and rejected the defence's plan.

Considering the defendant's extreme impairment, readily available keys, running vehicle, and unpredictable conduct, the court concluded there was a realistic risk of danger to persons or property.

Cheung was found guilty on both counts.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for armed robbery of a convenience store in Brantford, Ontario on October 6, 2018.

The Crown alleged that Deakin entered the store brandishing a firearm and knife while Stewart remained outside keeping watch.

The Crown proceeded on charges of robbery simpliciter (as no firearm was recovered) and masking during the commission of an indictable offence.

Deakin's defence was identity; Stewart's defence was duress and lack of knowledge.

The court found both accused guilty on both charges based on video evidence, eyewitness identification, and analysis of the accused's conduct before, during, and after the robbery.

The Crown applied to vacate the preliminary hearing of N.J. and sought a ruling that Niyazi Rasidoff was not entitled to a preliminary hearing.

Both accused were charged with sexual assault, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

They had requested preliminary hearings before September 19, 2019, when amendments to the Criminal Code came into effect, restricting preliminary hearings to offences carrying potential imprisonment of 14 years or more.

The court considered whether the amendments applied retrospectively or prospectively and was bound by the Superior Court decision in R. v. R.S., which held the amendments were procedural and applied retrospectively.

The court vacated N.J.'s preliminary hearing and ruled that Rasidoff was not entitled to one.

The defendant, Tiffany Skye Johnson, was charged with three drug offences: possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of Methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

She pleaded guilty to the Methamphetamine and proceeds charges.

The trial proceeded solely on the Fentanyl trafficking charge.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis to the defendant's testimony.

Despite expert evidence suggesting trafficking intent based on the quantity of Fentanyl and associated paraphernalia, the court found the defendant's explanation for personal use, bulk purchase for cost efficiency, and necessity to carry drugs due to homelessness and distrust to be plausible and credible.

This created a reasonable doubt regarding the intent to traffick Fentanyl.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted of possession of Fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple possession of Fentanyl.

The accused, Leonard Borne, applied for an order permitting a challenge for cause in his jury trial for sexual assault charges, alleging potential juror impartiality due to the #MeToo movement and its "believe the victim" slogan.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of widespread bias that would prevent jurors from setting aside prejudice despite proper judicial instructions and existing trial safeguards.

Arthur John Blackwood was convicted of production of marijuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a prior criminal record for similar offences, and mitigating factors such as cooperation with police and remorse.

The court imposed a total custodial sentence of 402 days (after credit for pre-trial custody) and ordered forfeiture of offence-related property, including the net proceeds from the sale of his home, finding the forfeiture not disproportionate given the nature and gravity of the offences and his criminal record.

The accused, Gary Thompson, faced two counts of attempted murder after allegedly using his motor vehicle to try and kill two individuals.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the specific intent to kill.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding a blackout and lack of intent to be inconsistent with circumstantial evidence, including text messages and the extreme force of the vehicle's impact with other objects.

The court concluded that the accused did intend to kill the victims and entered convictions for both counts of attempted murder.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or drug and with having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown withdrew the over-80 charge prior to the close of its case.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving after the court rejected her defence of necessity, which was based on claims that she was experiencing suicidal ideation and drove to seek help.

The court found no evidence of imminent peril, reasonable legal alternatives existed, and the proportionality requirement was not satisfied.

Arthur John Blackwood was charged with multiple offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and the Criminal Code.

He pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana (Count 3) and was deemed to have pleaded guilty to production of marijuana (Count 1).

The trial proceeded on charges of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking (Count 2), possession of ammunition while prohibited (Count 5), and possession of proceeds of crime (Count 6).

The court found Blackwood guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking based on his statements, lack of conventional income, and the large quantity of marijuana and plants.

He was found not guilty of possession of proceeds of crime due to insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

He was found guilty of possession of ammunition, as his ownership of the residence and knowledge of the ammunition constituted "control" despite his argument that he did not bring it into the house.