John S. Struthers

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence seized during the execution of search warrants at his residence and motor vehicle, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The warrants were based on information from a confidential informant and subsequent police surveillance.

Applying the Debot test, the court found the informant's tip was compelling, the source was reliable, and the information was sufficiently corroborated by police observations of suspected hand-to-hand drug transactions.

The court concluded there were reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrants and dismissed the application.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested for possession of marijuana based solely on the odour of burnt marijuana.

Following the arrest, the accused was subjected to a strip search in the field and a 50-minute delay in being informed of his right to counsel.

The court found that the odour of burnt marijuana alone did not provide reasonable grounds for arrest, resulting in violations of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court also found violations of ss. 8 and 10(b) due to the unreasonable manner of the strip search and the delay in providing rights to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the seized drugs under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The defendant was arrested based on the odour of burnt marijuana detected by police during a traffic stop.

Following the arrest, police conducted a strip search at the roadside without proper grounds or informational requirements, and delayed informing the defendant of his right to counsel for approximately 50 minutes.

The defendant was charged with possession of controlled drugs for trafficking, assault with intent to resist arrest, administering a noxious substance, and failing to comply with probation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including an unlawful arrest, unreasonable delay in providing s. 10(b) rights, and an improperly conducted strip search.

All evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation involving two complainants.

The Crown conceded committal on charges involving the first complainant.

Regarding the second complainant, the defence argued that the complainant consented to the sexual activity at the time it occurred, and that the accused was not in a position of trust or authority.

The court found that the complainant's subjective state of mind at the time of the sexual activity was determinative, and that her later retrospective characterization of the relationship as abusive did not negate consent that existed at the time.

The court also found no evidence that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over the complainant despite her volunteering at his mother's martial arts facility.

All charges involving the second complainant were discharged.

The respondent was convicted of importing approximately 1,976 grams of cocaine into Canada on December 1, 2015, concealed in four containers (Metamucil, curry spice, and psyllium fibre powder) in her personal belongings upon return from Jamaica.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of six to eight years, while the defence sought three to five years.

The court imposed a sentence of six years' incarceration at the low end of the established range for multi-kilogram cocaine importation, along with a mandatory lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The court considered the respondent's personal circumstances, community support, and pro-social conduct since arrest as mitigating factors, but found these did not warrant a departure below the applicable sentencing range given the serious nature of multi-kilogram drug importation.

The Crown charged two defendants with breaking and entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The case involved circumstantial evidence of identity, including BlackBerry Messenger communications recovered from the deceased intruder's phone.

The court admitted hearsay evidence under the present intentions exception and the co-conspirator's exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown established that the defendants were members of a conspiracy to commit the break-in through analysis of cryptic text messages, DNA evidence, and circumstantial connections.

Both defendants were convicted.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and simple assault committed against his former domestic partner in her home on multiple occasions between March and July 2016.

The accused also pleaded guilty to breaching a section 810.2 recognizance by failing to keep the peace and be of good behavior, and by failing to report as required.

The court imposed a global sentence of 2 years and 11 months prior to credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 701 days to serve.

The sentencing emphasized the serious nature of domestic violence, the accused's extensive criminal history including prior violent offences, and the need for specific and general deterrence.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, as well as possession of proceeds of crime, following the execution of a search warrant at a residence.

The accused was found in the kitchen, but no contraband was found on his person.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including an expired license plate renewal form, to establish constructive possession.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused resided at the home or had knowledge and control of the drugs and currency.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with drug and driving-related offences arising from his interaction with a co-accused.

The Crown's case relied on intercepted phone calls, surveillance evidence, and the discovery of a large quantity of drugs in the accused's vehicle following a high-speed chase.

The central issues were knowledge and credibility.

The accused testified that he was unaware of any drugs being brought into the country, that he was merely assisting his friend's brother with accommodation and transportation, and that he believed he was being chased by dangerous individuals rather than police officers.

The court found the accused's testimony compelling and credible, and determined that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the drugs or consent to their transportation.

An acquittal was entered on all counts.

The United States requested the extradition of Colin Levy for alleged involvement in MDMA distribution and cocaine importation.

The Attorney General of Canada sought a committal order under the Extradition Act.

Levy's counsel argued insufficient identification evidence, particularly concerning single photo identification.

The court found that the identification evidence, including witness testimony from someone who knew Levy and surveillance by a special agent, was not manifestly unreliable.

The court distinguished previous case law on single photo identification, noting that it is not inherently unreliable if the witness had prior knowledge of the subject, reinforcing *United States of America v. Khuc* and *R. v. Liebhardt*.

The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to justify an order for committal for extradition.

The offender pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a restricted firearm, knowingly unauthorized possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order.

The offender was shot at in a restaurant while dining with his wife and carried a loaded handgun for protection.

He was arrested and held in pre-sentence custody for approximately 21 months at Toronto South Detention Centre, during which he experienced extensive lockdowns (approximately 410 days out of 620 days).

The court imposed a sentence of two years in federal penitentiary followed by three years of probation, considering both the gravity of the offences and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, particularly the systemic lockdowns caused by chronic understaffing.

The accused, Sean Gellvear, faced 14 counts of arson and mischief related to two fires in Kensington Market.

The Crown relied on surveillance videos, witness identification, and similar fact evidence to prove identity.

The defence challenged the identification, arguing the video quality was poor and witness descriptions were inconsistent.

The court found that the video evidence was insufficient for positive identification beyond a reasonable doubt, even with non-expert recognition evidence from acquaintances.

The court emphasized that "similar" clothing or circumstances are not enough to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of marihuana and MDMA, following a police search of an apartment.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance of the accused entering the building and their presence in the apartment when the search warrant was executed.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and found that the evidence reasonably supported inferences other than guilt, specifically that the accused lacked knowledge and control of the drugs.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of trafficking in cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown proceeded largely through filed 540(7) materials.

The court applied the test for committal, which requires determining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonably instructed jury could convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case involved circumstantial evidence and required careful analysis of inferences that could be properly drawn from the evidence presented.

Omar Black was charged with importing cocaine after an unclaimed suitcase, bearing his name and DNA, containing 15 kg of cocaine, was discovered at Pearson Airport following his flight from Antigua.

Black denied any knowledge of the drugs, asserting he had given the suitcase to his Antiguan girlfriend months prior.

The court found Black's testimony to be incredible and incapable of raising a reasonable doubt, highlighting the implausibility of his girlfriend retaining the tagged suitcase and orchestrating such a significant drug shipment as an act of revenge.

The court concluded that the Crown had proven Black's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the circumstantial evidence, including the suitcase's ownership, identification tags, its presence on his flight, and his DNA on an item inside.

The accused were involved in a large-scale marijuana trafficking operation.

Following guilty findings based on Agreed Statements of Fact, the court proceeded to sentencing.

The primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation were emphasized, particularly given the commercial nature and significant profits involved.

The court rejected arguments to delay sentencing based on anticipated changes to marijuana laws, affirming the rule of law.

State misconduct in the investigation, while acknowledged, was deemed to have negligible impact on sentencing.

Credit was given for onerous bail conditions and the efficient conduct of the trial through Agreed Statements of Fact.

Conditional sentences were deemed inappropriate, with penitentiary sentences warranted for all accused.

The accused was originally charged with second-degree murder in the death of his son but pleaded guilty to manslaughter.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence.

The court found that the accused's wrongful conduct was in mixing alcohol with prescription sleeping pills, which he knew he should not do.

The court determined this was an exceptional case where denunciation and general deterrence could be achieved without further custody, given the accused's approximately one year of pre-trial credit, his lack of criminal record, his remorse, and the absence of any history of conflict with the victim.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with maximum probation and community service.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of uttering threats entered in the Ontario Court of Justice.

He argued that the trial judge misapplied the third branch of the W. (D.) credibility framework and effectively reversed the burden of proof by treating the case as a credibility contest and by improperly favouring police evidence.

The court held that the trial judge’s reasons, read as a whole, demonstrated an understanding and proper application of the W. (D.) analysis and that the judge was entitled to prefer the officers’ testimony.

Minor inconsistencies in the officers’ evidence were not material, and credibility findings were owed deference.

The appellate court found no palpable and overriding error or misapprehension of the evidence.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to review a justice of the peace’s order releasing the accused on bail for an attempted murder charge arising from a gang-related shooting.

The Crown argued that detention was required on the secondary and tertiary grounds and that the release decision was clearly inappropriate.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada’s framework in St‑Cloud governing bail reviews under ss. 520 and 521, the court held that intervention is warranted only for legal error, a clearly inappropriate decision, or material new evidence.

The reviewing judge concluded that the justice of the peace committed no legal error and that the balancing of factors under s. 515(10)(b) and (c) was not clearly inappropriate, particularly given the circumstantial nature of the Crown’s case.

The Crown’s bail review application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an incident on a Keswick street where he struck the complainant, causing serious head injuries requiring brain surgery.

The defendant admitted striking the blow but claimed self-defence, asserting he believed the complainant was about to strike him.

The incident followed a confrontation at a local bar the previous evening where the complainant made threats and displayed aggressive behaviour.

The court examined conflicting eyewitness accounts and found the defendant's evidence, while not without blemish, raised a reasonable doubt regarding his guilt.

The court acquitted the defendant on the basis that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defence.