Jordan Douglas Tekenos-Levy

The Applicant brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a multi-unit dwelling.

The court found the search warrant invalid because police failed to disclose obvious indicia that the residence contained multiple units, rendering the warrant overbroad.

The subsequent search, detention, and arrest were therefore illegal, violating ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Furthermore, police violated the Applicant's s. 10(b) rights by delaying access to counsel for two hours without justification and eliciting inculpatory actions (opening a safe) before he could consult a lawyer.

Applying the Grant test, the court concluded the serious and cumulative Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the seized drugs and the Applicant's statements under s. 24(2).

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual assault by choking, and assault with a weapon.

The sexual assault charges related to allegations by his former spouse, while the assault with a weapon charge related to the accused spanking his daughter with a Birkenstock sandal.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found a reasonable doubt on the sexual assault charges and acquitted the accused.

However, the court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon, concluding that the use of the sandal was unreasonable and not protected by the corrective force exemption under section 43 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault against his former spouse, including two counts alleged to have occurred entirely in Alberta and Quebec.

At the outset of the trial, the defence brought an application to quash or dismiss those two counts for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Crown argued there was a real and substantial connection to Ontario based on the ongoing relationship, cross-count assaults, and the psychological effects suffered by the complainant in Ontario.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding no elements of the offences occurred in Ontario and the effects-based analysis did not apply.

The two out-of-province counts were stayed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a Charter motion alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by a search of a residence based on a warrant obtained using confidential informant information.

The court found that the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient credibility regarding the informants, resulting in a s. 8 breach.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the seized evidence (fentanyl, cocaine, and a firearm) under s. 24(2), emphasizing society's strong interest in adjudicating serious offences on their merits.

The applicants sought a declaration that their section 8 Charter rights were violated by the police and the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded standing for one applicant but contested it for the other, arguing he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the target apartment.

The court ruled that the contested applicant had standing, relying on the totality of the Crown's allegations to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy, distinguishing the case from R. v. Osman.

The accused was convicted of possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, along with other offences.

The sentencing judge considered the principles of sentencing, aggravating factors (nature of fentanyl, criminal record), and limited mitigating factors.

The Crown sought a 7-year global sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day or a custodial sentence of no more than an additional 2 years.

The court declined a conditional sentence due to the offender's criminal record and history of non-compliance with court orders.

A global sentence of 6 years incarceration was imposed, reduced by 1 year for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 5 years in custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The accused, Jonathan Samuel, faced charges including possession of fentanyl and cocaine for trafficking, obstructing a peace officer, and unlawful entry into a dwelling-house, along with breaches of release and probation orders.

The trial involved a mistrial application based on alleged judicial bias and a Charter application to exclude evidence due to an alleged s. 8 breach (unreasonable search and seizure).

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias.

It also dismissed the Charter application, concluding that exigent circumstances justified the warrantless police entry into the hotel room, and even if there was a breach, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all substantive charges, including drug trafficking, obstruction, unlawful entry, and the breach counts.

The accused, Thomas Donovan, applied to set aside his guilty plea to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, entered on April 5, 2022.

The application was based on his assertion that the drugs were not his and that he took the headphone case containing them from an acquaintance, Zach Pringle, leading to a claim of factual inaccuracy in the plea.

Despite the plea being voluntary, informed, and unequivocal, the court found valid grounds to set it aside in the interests of justice.

The court considered the arguable credibility of the accused's new account, the hearsay evidence from Mr. Pringle, the accused's reluctance to implicate Mr. Pringle, his motivation to plead guilty due to poor detention conditions, and his Indigenous background as a relevant factor.

The court concluded that restoring the presumption of innocence was in the interests of justice, allowing the accused to make full answer and defence.

The accused, Mitchell Jones, faced multiple charges including mischief, forcible entry, sexual assault, and voyeurism.

The trial focused heavily on credibility assessments of both the complainant and the accused, applying the principles from R. v. W. (D.).

The court acquitted the accused on most charges, finding reasonable doubt based on conflicting evidence and the complainant's contemporaneous statements.

Convictions were entered for one count of mischief (damage to vehicle) and the lesser included offence of assault (from a sexual assault charge).

The accused, a professional truck driver, was charged with four counts of criminal negligence causing death and three counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm following a multi-vehicle collision on Highway 401.

The accused's tractor-trailer, travelling at 100 km/h on cruise control, failed to slow down for a line of stop-and-go traffic, striking a car and causing a chain reaction.

The court found that the accused was distracted, likely reaching down for an extended period, and failed to perceive or react to the obvious hazard ahead.

The court concluded that the accused's conduct was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, demonstrating a wanton and reckless disregard for the lives and safety of others.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving over 80 after civilians observed him asleep at the wheel and swerving continuously.

The accused raised Charter challenges under ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b), and argued breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court dismissed the ss. 8 and 10(a) claims and found the breath samples were taken expeditiously.

Although the Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach regarding the implementational duty to wait for counsel of choice, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) because the accused spoke to duty counsel and his counsel of choice never called back.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in a firearm contrary to section 99(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence based on the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The defence argued for a conditional sentence of less than two years.

The court addressed the constitutional validity of the mandatory minimum sentence of three years, finding that it had been declared unconstitutional by the Superior Court and was no longer operative.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, considering the accused's lack of criminal history, stable employment and community ties, the single nature of the transaction, the element of police persuasion, and the restrictive bail conditions already served.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his ten-year-old son and seven-year-old daughter with a weapon (a stick or spoon) on multiple occasions between May 2016 and January 2017.

Both children testified via closed-circuit video and provided video-taped statements to police.

The Crown alleged the defendant used an instrument as a means of physical parental discipline.

The defendant denied all allegations and testified he had reformed his parenting approach following a prior 2015 conviction.

The trial judge found the defendant not guilty on both counts, determining that while the children's evidence presented some persuasive elements, significant credibility and reliability concerns, combined with the absence of corroborating evidence and the mother's testimony contradicting key aspects of the allegations, created a reasonable doubt that could not be overcome.