Joseph Addelman

The applicant, accused of fatally stabbing his son, brought a Corbett application to exclude his criminal record from being adduced at trial.

He argued the dated record would cause undue prejudice and lead to improper propensity reasoning by the jury.

The Crown opposed, noting the applicant's credibility was central and he had already introduced parts of his record and attacked the victim's character.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant's credibility was crucial and a properly instructed jury could use the criminal record for its limited purpose.

The applicant, charged with the second degree murder of his son, brought a mid-trial Scopelliti application to admit evidence of the deceased's propensity for violence.

The applicant sought to introduce evidence of prior violent acts by the deceased, including incidents unknown to the applicant, to support a claim of self-defence.

The court held that evidence of the deceased's disposition for violence unknown to the accused is only admissible if there is some other appreciable evidence that the deceased was the aggressor on the occasion in question.

Finding no such appreciable evidence at the time of the stabbing, the court limited the admissible evidence to incidents known to the applicant and observations of their relationship by specific witnesses, while excluding the deceased's entire criminal record and incidents unknown to the applicant.

The accused, charged with the second-degree murder of his son, brought an application to have the defence of self-defence put to the jury.

The accused testified that his son threatened to kill him, prompting the accused to stab him.

The court applied the air of reality test to the new self-defence provisions under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found there was an evidential foundation for the accused's reasonable belief of a threat and defensive purpose, and concluded that the reasonableness of the act must be left to the jury.

The accused, charged with the second-degree murder of his son, sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence to support a claim of self-defence analogous to battered spouse syndrome.

The proposed expert opined that the accused's actions fit the idea of a pre-emptive homicide as self-defence.

The court excluded this portion of the expert's opinion, finding it unnecessary, beyond the expert's qualifications, and liable to usurp the jury's function in assessing the accused's state of mind and the reasonableness of his actions under section 34(2) of the Criminal Code.

During a jury trial, the Crown brought an application under section 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine its own witness on a prior inconsistent statement.

The witness claimed to have no memory of conversations and events that he had previously detailed in a police statement.

The court found the witness's claim of memory loss was not credible, noting he could recall other significant details from the same day.

The court granted the application, permitting the Crown to cross-examine the witness on the prior statement.

The accused was charged with three firearm offences arising from an incident at a shopping mall in Ottawa on October 2, 2017: careless handling of a firearm contrary to section 86(3) of the Criminal Code, possession of a prohibited/restricted/non-restricted firearm without a licence contrary to section 91(3), and knowing possession of a firearm without a licence contrary to section 92(3).

A fourth count of weapons dangerous was dismissed by the Crown.

The trial proceeded on the basis that the accused picked up a handgun during a violent altercation and removed it from the mall, subsequently abandoning it in the parking lot.

The central legal issue was whether the accused had a lawful excuse for his possession of the firearm under the public duty defence, and whether his disposal of the weapon constituted careless handling.

The accused was charged with assaulting a person with an imitation weapon, using an imitation firearm while attempting to commit an indictable offence of assault with an imitation firearm, and possession of an imitation weapon for the purpose of committing an offence.

The charges arose from events on November 25, 2016, following an altercation between the accused's friend and the victim's son.

The trial judge found significant credibility issues with the Crown's witnesses, including material discrepancies regarding the distance of the alleged threat, whether words were spoken, and the location of witnesses.

The judge concluded that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused pointed the imitation firearm at the victim or that he possessed it for the purpose of committing an offence.

All three counts were dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death after his minivan, which was positioned perpendicularly across the eastbound lane near the crest of a blind hill, was struck by a motorcycle.

The collision resulted in the deaths of the motorcycle operator and passenger.

The court found that while the accused's driving was objectively dangerous, the Crown failed to prove the requisite objective mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the accused's conduct amounted to a momentary lapse in judgment due to his unfamiliarity with the road and the lack of warning signs, rather than a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.

The accused was acquitted of both counts.

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging an infringement of his right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 32.5 months, marginally exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in *R. v. Jordan*.

The court deducted one month for defence delay (accused being a fugitive), resulting in a net delay of 31 months.

The Crown invoked the "transitional exceptional circumstances" exception, arguing reasonable reliance on pre-*Jordan* case law (*R. v. Morin* guidelines) and existing scheduling practices in Ottawa.

The court found that counsel and the court had reasonably relied on the previous regime for calculating s. 11(b) delay, and that staying a second-degree murder charge under these circumstances, where the *Jordan* ceiling was only moderately exceeded, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application was dismissed.

The three accused, Ashton Larmond, Carlos Larmond, and Suliman Mohamed, pleaded guilty to various terrorism-related offences and other charges.

Ashton Larmond pleaded guilty to knowingly instructing persons to enhance terrorist activity, Carlos Larmond to attempting to leave Canada for terrorist activity, and Suliman Mohamed to conspiring to enhance a terrorist group's ability.

The Larmond brothers also pleaded guilty to offences committed in custody, including threats to correctional officers and inmates, and unlawful communication.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions, emphasizing the gravity of "home grown" terrorism and the importance of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, arising from a collision on May 18, 2015, in Ottawa.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing 168 mg% and 165 mg% at the time of testing, expert toxicological evidence regarding scientific impairment at 50 mg%, and police observations of alleged signs of impairment.

The defence raised the "last drink" doctrine, arguing the accused consumed alcohol approximately 13 minutes before driving, and challenged the applicability of general scientific impairment evidence to the specific accused.

The court found the accused not guilty on both counts.

The applicant sought a sending order under s. 15(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to send business records seized from the respondents to the Kingdom of Belgium for a criminal fraud investigation.

The respondents opposed the order, arguing the seized materials contained trade secrets and that the Belgian investigation was a bad faith attempt to gain a competitive advantage.

The court granted the sending order, finding the search warrant was lawfully executed and there was no evidence of bad faith.

The court noted that concerns regarding intellectual property were addressed by the treaty's restrictions on unauthorized disclosure and were matters for the Minister of Justice, not the court.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether there is sufficient evidence to commit seven accused persons to stand trial on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, unlawful confinement, and unlawful entry arising from a brutal attack on the victim in the early morning hours of November 17, 2013.

The Crown's theory is that the attack was undertaken in retaliation for an assault on the brother of one of the accused the previous day.

The court applies the prima facie case standard, examining whether there is evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on each element of each charge.

The decision addresses complex issues regarding the mens rea of attempted murder, the admissibility of hearsay statements, the evaluation of circumstantial identification evidence, and the requirements for party liability.

In a criminal prosecution for robbery, the Crown brought a voir dire application seeking to admit recognition evidence from two civilian witnesses who identified the accused in surveillance video.

The defence conceded the admissibility of one witness but objected to the other on the basis that the probative value was low and the prejudicial effect outweighed it.

Applying the “prior acquaintance/better position” test articulated in Berhe and Brown, the court found the witness had sufficient prior familiarity with the accused from frequent interactions as a store customer.

The court concluded the witness was in a better position than the trier of fact to identify the accused on the video and that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice.

The recognition evidence was admitted on a threshold basis, with issues of reliability left for the jury’s assessment of weight.

The Crown brought a section 540(7) application seeking to admit witness statements as evidence at a preliminary inquiry without requiring the witnesses to testify.

The application involved four key witnesses: Jessica Walker, Samantha Daoust, Mark Sudiacal, and Jason Klein.

The Crown sought to admit their statements under the Criminal Code provision that permits justices to receive evidence that would not otherwise be admissible if the justice considers it credible or trustworthy.

The court admitted the statements of Daoust, Sudiacal, and Klein, as well as the videotaped statements of Walker, but excluded Walker's off-camera statement recorded in police notes.

The decision provides comprehensive guidance on the interpretation and application of section 540(7).

The Crown sought reconsideration of a preliminary inquiry judge's ruling denying a section 540(7) application to file transcripts of witness statements.

The initial judge had rejected the application as inadequately presented and lacking sufficient grounding.

The Crown subsequently renewed the application with a fuller record.

The presiding judge ruled that reconsideration was permissible, finding that the initial ruling was not a final determination on the merits of section 540(7) admissibility but rather a rejection of the application as presented.

The judge held that interlocutory evidentiary rulings can be reconsidered where there is no prejudice to the defence and where the interests of justice support reconsideration, particularly in preliminary inquiries where evidentiary errors cannot be appealed.

Multiple accused brought directed verdict motions in a jury trial alleging fraud and conspiracy involving the takeover of ING Direct customer bank accounts using confidential customer information.

The court reviewed the legal requirements for conspiracy, emphasizing the need for proof of an agreement and a shared unlawful objective, which may be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

The court held that there was some evidence capable of supporting an inference of conspiratorial agreement for certain counts, including evidence that one accused obtained confidential banking information and that another used that information to access accounts and transfer funds.

The motions for directed verdicts were dismissed for several accused because the evidence could permit a properly instructed jury to infer participation in the conspiracy or fraud.

However, one accused obtained a directed verdict of acquittal on a specific fraud count due to insufficient evidence linking him to the fraudulent transfer of funds.

The offender was convicted after trial of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of oxycodone and methamphetamine, possession of ammunition while prohibited, and breach of probation.

Police surveillance and a search warrant led to the discovery of packaged cocaine, pills, brass knuckles, and multiple cell phones in the offender’s vehicle, as well as ammunition in his residence.

The offender had a prior criminal record including a previous conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking and was on probation for a violent offence at the time of the new offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for cocaine trafficking offences while considering the offender’s criminal history and the relatively small quantity of drugs involved.

A sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment was imposed, less credit for 315 days of pre-trial custody, along with ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture orders.

The offender was convicted of multiple offences including trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic as part of a mid-level drug operation known as Project Bulldawg.

Despite strong family support and evidence that the offender was an addict-trafficker, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the kilogram-level quantities and prior trafficking record.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, reduced to 4 years after crediting 12 months for strict pre-trial bail conditions, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.