Joseph W. Bovard

The applicants sought the return of seized cash and property under s. 490(9)(c) of the Criminal Code after the initial detention order expired.

The police seized $43,390 CAD and $2 USD, along with a Louis Vuitton pouch and hat, during an inventory search following a drinking and driving investigation.

The applicants provided affidavits asserting lawful ownership, with one applicant claiming the majority of the cash as rental income and the other claiming a smaller portion and the personal items.

Despite suspicious circumstances noted by the Crown regarding the money's storage and the vehicle's VIN, the court found the applicants' unchallenged evidence of lawful ownership on a balance of probabilities to be credible.

The application for the return of property was granted.

The accused, Jason Ronald Martin, faced multiple charges including impaired driving, drug possession, and probation breaches.

The defence brought Charter applications alleging breaches of ss. 8 (unreasonable search due to a routine strip search and inadequate record-keeping), 9 (arbitrary detention due to delay in bail hearing), and 10(a) and (b) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest and right to counsel).

The court found breaches of s. 8 and ss. 10(a) and (b), noting the police's routine strip search policy and their failure to promptly and clearly inform the accused of all charges.

The s. 9 application was dismissed as the delay in bringing the accused before a justice was deemed reasonable given the circumstances.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious nature of the breaches and their significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests warranted the exclusion of all evidence.

Consequently, all charges against the accused were dismissed.

Kal Tekolla pleaded guilty to simple possession of Fentanyl and Oxycodone, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The incident involved drug-related activities in a densely populated community area with children present.

The Crown sought a sentence of approximately three years, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the loaded firearm, the presence of drugs and drug trafficking paraphernalia, the dangerous location, and the accused's resistance to arrest.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, positive rehabilitative efforts while on bail, and family support.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection as paramount principles for firearms and drug offences.

A global sentence of 30 months was determined, reduced to 26 months after credits for time spent on house arrest and for serving time during the pandemic.

This is a ruling on stage one of a third-party records application brought by the defence in a criminal proceeding.

The accused sought records from the Toronto Police Service's Professional Standards Unit concerning an investigation into the unauthorized public release of an in-car camera video of the accused.

The court found that the defence discharged its onus on stage one, establishing that the records were likely relevant to issues at trial, including potential animus of arresting officers and the evidentiary foundation for a Charter application.

The court ordered the records to be produced for judicial review to determine stage two of the application.

The accused, P.H., was charged with two counts of sexual assault.

The defence argued the sexual activity was consensual, while the complainant alleged force.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable and lacking credibility due to inconsistencies, evasiveness, and confusing answers, which persisted despite the provision of interpreters.

The judge noted that while stereotypical assumptions about sexual assault victims' behaviour are prohibited, the complainant's explanations for her actions and statements were often implausible and untruthful.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was found not guilty.

This criminal trial concerned Richard Jason Boswick, charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm to Kevin Metcalf.

The alleged threat was made in a 2.5-minute segment of a 90-minute video posted online, where Boswick referred to shooting Metcalf with a rubber-coated marble.

Boswick argued his comments were not directed at Metcalf but a general group, were hypothetical, or were political banter, and raised a self-defence claim.

The court found that the words objectively constituted a threat directed at Metcalf (or a group including him), that conditional threats are still threats, and that intoxication did not diminish their significance.

The self-defence claim was rejected as there was no reasonable ground for belief of imminent force from Metcalf.

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

The accused, self-represented, brought a motion for a mistrial due to the Crown's failure to disclose the complainant's videotaped statement to the police.

The Crown conceded the breach of disclosure but argued it did not warrant a mistrial.

The court found that the accused failed to demonstrate that the non-disclosure impaired his ability to make full answer and defence or compromised the overall fairness of the trial, as the primary evidence against him was his own recorded statement, not the complainant's.

The motion for a mistrial was dismissed.

The defendant, Shawn Rene Bansfield, was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of breaching probation.

The Crown dismissed two counts related to a February 11, 2020 incident.

For the remaining charges from February 10, 2020, the court found the defendant not guilty.

The key witness's testimony was deemed unreliable due to drug use, sleep deprivation, and inconsistent observations, and the video evidence was of poor quality, leading to reasonable doubt.

The court also addressed arguments regarding the necessity of proving the complainant's full name as particularized and the relevance of the relationship between the accused and complainant when consent is negated by unconsciousness.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his right to trial within a reasonable time.

The charges were impaired driving and "Over 80." The gross delay from the laying of the Information on July 18, 2016 to the projected conclusion of trial on November 6, 2018 was 27 months and 20 days.

After deducting defence delay and delay attributable to exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was 22.25 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court by 4.25 months.

The court found the case was not particularly complex and granted the application, staying the charges.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control, over 80 care or control, and possession of crack cocaine following a police investigation that began when officers observed him and a woman in a truck in a laneway.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence based on alleged breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: an unjustified flashlight search violating section 8; an arrest without reasonable and probable grounds violating section 8; and multiple violations of the right to counsel under section 10(b), including delayed notification of rights, questioning after invocation of counsel, and failure to re-advise on a new charge.

The court excluded all evidence and acquitted the accused on all charges.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision determining whether the accused should be committed to stand trial on first-degree murder or second-degree murder charges.

The Crown alleged that the accused planned and deliberately murdered the victim by shooting him in the head.

The Crown's primary evidence was surveillance video showing the accused entering the victim's apartment with a gun pointed at the victim's back.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence existed for second-degree murder but contested first-degree murder.

The court found that while the surveillance video evidence of the gun was significant, when considered in the context of all evidence—including the accused allowing the victim to leave the apartment briefly, the absence of evidence of animus between the parties, and the lack of evidence of a struggle—the evidence did not support a reasonable inference of planning and deliberation required for first-degree murder.

The court discharged the accused on first-degree murder but committed him to stand trial on second-degree murder.

The accused was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought an application under section 276.1 of the Criminal Code seeking to adduce evidence of the complainant's prior sexual relationship with the accused and her sexual activity with third parties.

The court conducted a hearing under section 276.2 to determine admissibility.

The court granted the application only to the extent that the defence could adduce evidence that the complainant and accused had met during a specific period to exchange sex for crack cocaine or money, as this was necessary context for understanding their relationship.

The court denied the application regarding evidence of specific prior sexual encounters between the parties and all evidence regarding the complainant's sexual activity with third parties.

The application record was sealed to protect the complainant's privacy and dignity.

The Crown applied for an assessment order under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code to determine whether the accused, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, was suffering from a mental disorder rendering him exempt from criminal responsibility.

The defence agreed the accused suffered from a mental disorder but opposed the application.

The court found that while the accused understood the nature and quality of his act, there were reasonable grounds to doubt his criminal responsibility regarding whether he understood the act was morally wrong.

The court granted the assessment order limited to the moral wrongfulness prong of the s. 16(1) test.

The accused was charged with sexual assault simpliciter and being a person in authority to touch a young person for a sexual purpose.

The complainant, a 16-year-old high school student, alleged that the accused, her employer at a pharmacy, grabbed her buttocks over her skirt during her first day of work.

The accused denied the allegation, claiming the complainant fabricated the charge after he terminated her employment due to a disturbance caused by her boyfriend.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was generally well-delivered, there were inconsistencies regarding the boyfriend's presence in the pharmacy.

The accused's evidence, though at times unusual, raised reasonable doubt.

The court acquitted on all charges.

Appeal of sentences imposed on a corporation and two directors for violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act following the death of a worker who fell from an elevated order picker platform.

The trial judge imposed fines of $125,000 on each count against the corporation and 25 days intermittent incarceration on each director.

The appellants challenged the sentences as excessive.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and substantially reduced the sentences, finding that imprisonment was inappropriate for first-time offenders in regulatory matters and that the fines were demonstrably unfit and outside the acceptable range for similar offences.

The accused was tried on two counts of attempted fraud over $5,000, two counts of possession of property obtained by indictable offence, and four counts of breaching recognizance conditions.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly participated in a scheme to deposit stolen cheques into a trust account.

The accused maintained he did not know the cheques were stolen and was not involved in any fraudulent scheme.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the fraud and possession charges, acquitting on counts 1-4.

The court found the accused guilty of breaching recognizance conditions related to possession of financial instruments (counts 7-8), but acquitted on the house arrest breach charges (counts 5-6) as the bank visits fell within the work exemption.

The appellant appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with an Order to Comply issued under the Building Code Act.

The respondent, a property owner, had leased commercial premises to a tenant who performed unauthorized construction.

The respondent received an order to comply but argued it did not apply to them as the landlord.

The trial court acquitted the respondent based on lack of collateral attack and due diligence.

On appeal, the court found the respondent was engaged in an impermissible collateral attack but upheld the acquittal based on the trial court's finding of due diligence, which was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The accused was charged with "over 80" (impaired driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit).

The trial focused on whether police breached the accused's Charter rights during the breath testing procedure.

The court found that a police officer assaulted the accused while he was in custody and handcuffed to a bench, attempting to force him to speak to his girlfriend.

The court determined this constituted a serious breach of the accused's section 7 Charter rights (security of the person).

The court further found that the police failed to properly investigate or report the allegation of assault.

Consequently, the court excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking in marijuana.

Police officers conducted a warrantless detention and search of the accused's vehicle based on suspicion arising from the manner in which the vehicle was parked.

The court found that the detention was arbitrary, lacking reasonable suspicion, and that the subsequent search was tainted by the unlawful detention.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter breaches and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused was charged with "over 80" and impaired driving following a RIDE spot check.

The defence brought a Charter motion arguing that police breached the accused's right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The accused, a Vietnamese immigrant with limited English proficiency, was not provided with an interpreter despite "special circumstances" indicating he could not meaningfully understand his rights to counsel.

The court found the police breached the accused's Charter rights by failing to obtain interpreter services through the CanTalk system.

The breath sample evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court also found the accused not guilty of impaired driving on the merits, as the evidence of impairment was insufficient.