Jordana Heather Goldlist

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning charges of human trafficking, procuring for prostitution, and related offences against two accused.

The court applied the test from Arcuri to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to commit the accused to trial.

The judge found sufficient evidence on multiple counts relating to the exploitation of vulnerable women in the sex trade, including evidence of control, direction, and influence over complainants' movements and earnings.

The court committed both accused on various counts while discharging others where insufficient evidence was presented.

A 17-year-old accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference after engaging in sexual activity with a 12-year-old complainant.

The sole issue was whether the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age pursuant to section 150.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused asked the complainant her age and she stated she was 16.

The complainant presented herself as older through her appearance, behavior, social circle, and online presence.

Upon learning her true age, the accused immediately terminated the relationship.

The court acquitted the accused on both counts, finding he had taken reasonable steps to ascertain age and the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not meet his obligations under section 150.1(4).

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude 25.3 grams of cocaine found in his underwear during a strip search at a police station.

The accused was initially arrested during a high-risk takedown following a 'gun call' from a citizen.

A search incident to arrest revealed marijuana and cash, leading to drug charges and the subsequent strip search.

The accused argued the police only had grounds for an investigative detention and exceeded their authority by searching his pockets.

The court dismissed the application, finding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the detailed citizen complaint, and alternatively, that a pocket search would have been justified during an investigative detention given the safety concerns.

The court also held that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder following the stabbing death of his roommate, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown conceded the primary ground but argued for detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the proposed sureties could adequately supervise the applicant, mitigating the risk to public safety.

The court also held that a reasonable member of the public would not lose confidence in the administration of justice if the applicant were released on strict conditions amounting to virtual house arrest.

The application for bail was granted.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed under the Securities Act for unregistered trading, trading without a prospectus, and breaching prohibition orders.

The sentencing judge had imposed an 18‑month sentence to run concurrently with a 27‑month sentence the respondent was already serving for separate securities offences involving a different company.

The Crown argued that the concurrent sentence undermined deterrence and failed to reflect that the offences arose from separate schemes occurring at different times with different victims.

The Superior Court held that the sentencing judge erred by failing to adequately consider the distinct nature of the schemes and the respondent’s repeated breaches of prohibition orders.

The court concluded that the totality principle did not render a 45‑month total sentence disproportionate and ordered the 18‑month term to be served consecutively.

The accused brought a Khelawon application seeking to admit hearsay evidence that, prior to execution of a search warrant, an officer told other officers that there was possibly a second armed male at the premises.

The officer who allegedly made the statement was seriously ill and unavailable to testify.

The defence argued the statement was necessary and reliable because it appeared in multiple officers’ notes and supported the theory that another person possessed the firearm found during the search.

The court held the statement did not meet the principled hearsay exception because reliability was not established and necessity was lacking where direct evidence from surveillance officers was available.

The application to admit the hearsay statement for the truth of its contents was denied.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five offences under the Securities Act, including trading in unregistered securities, distributing securities without a prospectus, and violating multiple Cease Trade Orders issued by the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendant, acting as a commissioned salesman for an unregistered securities scheme, solicited over $220,000 from investors using an alias and received approximately $44,000 in commissions.

The court sentenced the defendant to 18 months imprisonment, with sentences on the CTO violation counts served consecutively to the trading and distribution counts, but concurrent with an existing 27-month sentence for related offences in the Shallow Oil matter.

The tenant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the landlord $10,000 for water damage to an adjoining unit, repair costs, and bailiff fees for distraining the tenant's truck.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by ignoring key evidence, including the landlord's refusal to allow the tenant's expert to inspect the damaged unit and the lack of evidence regarding the unit's condition at the start of the lease.

The Court also found the distraint of the tenant's truck parked in a common area was illegal under the Commercial Tenancies Act.

A new trial was ordered.