Joseph De Filippis

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm to Marlon Haynes, assault and robbery with respect to Tanika McLeod, arising from a nightclub altercation in Oshawa.

The court found the defendant guilty of assaulting Tanika McLeod but acquitted him of the assault causing bodily harm to Marlon Haynes and the robbery charge.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony regarding his flight from police, finding it demonstrated consciousness of guilt, but accepted his explanation that he mistakenly picked up the complainant's property believing it to be his own.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and one count of failure to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment while the defence sought four years.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years, taking into account aggravating factors including the quantity of cocaine, the ongoing commercial enterprise, a prior conviction for similar offences, and breach of bail conditions, balanced against mitigating factors including the guilty plea, genuine remorse, youth, difficult childhood circumstances, and support from family.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision arising from Project Bermuda, a Durham Regional Police investigation into cocaine trafficking.

Four accused were charged with various drug trafficking, firearm, and proceeds of crime offences.

The Crown proceeded on numerous counts with some concessions by defence counsel.

The judge applied the Shephard test to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to commit each accused to trial.

The decision addresses key legal principles regarding possession, conspiracy, voice identification, and the scope of preliminary inquiries.

Multiple counts were dismissed for insufficient evidence, while others proceeded to trial.

The defendant was charged with four counts of threatening to kill the complainant, his wife, and two children on March 18, 2013.

The complainant was the defendant's supervising professor at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT).

The defendant claimed the reverse was true—that the complainant had threatened him.

After hearing evidence from four witnesses and reviewing numerous exhibits, the court found the defendant guilty.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as inconsistent with his conduct and accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and corroborated by his actions.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his pregnant wife by punching her in the stomach during her ninth month of pregnancy.

The Crown called the complainant who testified that the defendant punched her after an argument over car keys and delayed departure.

The defendant denied the assault, claiming he left to find alternative transportation due to frustration with the complainant's delaying tactics.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, noting that most of her testimony was unchallenged by the defendant.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence as internally inconsistent, finding that his conduct on the day in question—leaving late on a holiday to find public transit, abandoning his pregnant wife, and departing without discussion—was unreasonable and indicative of guilt.

The defendant was found guilty of assault.

The defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, assault causing bodily harm, and mischief under $5,000 following an incident on a farm.

The Crown alleged the defendant drove his vehicle into the complainant's truck, struck a hydro pole, and then assaulted the complainant.

The defendant claimed the complainant was intoxicated, responsible for hitting the pole, and that any physical contact was in self-defence.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to his state of intoxication and could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the alleged offences.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The defendant was an active street dealer in cocaine over several months, obtaining product from a Toronto supplier and distributing in Durham Region.

Wiretap evidence proved sales of approximately 4 ounces, with an additional 4.5 ounces seized upon arrest, totaling 244 grams.

The Crown sought a four to five year sentence, while defence counsel argued for a reformatory sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in addition to pre-sentence custody, considering aggravating factors including the quantity of drug, the ongoing enterprise over months, and the criminal record, balanced against the guilty plea, the defendant's young age, and expressed desire to reform.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267 of the Criminal Code.

The incident arose from a parking dispute in a laneway outside a Chinese food restaurant in Whitby.

After an argument and physical confrontation, the defendant punched the complainant in the face, causing him to lose two teeth and have one chipped.

The defendant claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant guilty, rejecting the self-defence claim as the defendant's actions were an unreasonable over-reaction to a minor struggle and did not constitute a proportionate response to any perceived threat.

The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s.5(3)(a.1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and possession of proceeds of crime contrary to s.354(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Police executed a search warrant at a residential address that was divided into two units without obtaining a separate warrant for the basement apartment.

The Crown conceded a breach of s.8 of the Charter.

The court applied the three-part test from R. v. Grant to determine whether evidence should be excluded under s.24(2).

The court found that the seriousness of the breach and impact on the accused's Charter-protected privacy interests favoured exclusion, despite society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The evidence was excluded and the charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife.

The trial proceeded over multiple dates with significant issues arising regarding defence counsel's conduct.

The defence counsel failed to meet minimum standards of competence, including incomplete motions, confusing disclosure requests, repetitious and irrelevant questioning, inattentiveness to evidence, incivility, inadequate review of disclosure materials, and an inappropriate allegation of prosecutorial misconduct.

The defence counsel closed his case prematurely without calling all intended witnesses and was unable to answer simple questions from the bench.

The judge declared a mistrial due to the defendant's lack of effective assistance from counsel and referred the matter to the Law Society.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 253 of the Criminal Code.

The sole issue at trial was whether the police violated the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter.

The defendant claimed she was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to exercise her right to counsel and sought exclusion of the breath sample evidence under section 24(2).

The court found that the defendant was properly informed of her right to counsel, understood this right, but failed to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting to retain counsel.

The defendant repeatedly claimed to have a lawyer but could not identify one, refused to pursue duty counsel despite being informed of this option, and engaged in what appeared to be deliberate delay tactics.

The court dismissed the Charter motion and found the defendant guilty.

This is a Dawson Motion brought by multiple defendants in a drug and firearm investigation known as Project Wheeler.

The defendants sought leave to cross-examine the affiant who deposed to the affidavit in support of a wiretap authorization granted by a Superior Court judge.

The defendants challenged two areas: claims about possession of firearms and statements that observations about meetings were indicative of drug trafficking.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate how cross-examination would undermine the preconditions for the wiretap authorization and that the allegations of sweeping generalizations and circular reasoning were not relevant to an attack on facial validity in the circumstances presented.

The defendant was charged with four offences arising from an incident on October 19, 2013: assault causing bodily harm, possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, carrying a concealed weapon, and being unlawfully in a dwelling-house.

The Crown and defence agreed to a directed verdict of acquittal on the weapon charges.

At trial, the court found the defendant guilty of unlawfully entering a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence (mischief), but acquitted him of assault causing bodily harm due to insufficient evidence regarding how the complainant's arm was cut.

The defendant was charged with 13 offences arising from a deteriorating marriage, including multiple counts of threatening death, assault, assault with a weapon, mischief, and criminal harassment.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant (the defendant's estranged wife), with limited corroborating evidence.

The defendant admitted to mischief but denied the remaining charges.

The court found significant credibility issues with both parties due to their substance abuse (alcohol and cocaine use during the relevant period), lack of independent witnesses to most incidents, and inconsistencies in the complainant's account.

The court convicted the defendant on three counts: assault with a weapon, assault, and mischief, all arising from an April 2013 incident.

All other charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop for an expired vehicle registration.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the subsequent search of his vehicle, claiming violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant sought to exclude the cocaine evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant for possession of marijuana based on the smell of burnt marijuana, the defendant's nervous demeanor, and his apparent attempt to conceal something in the vehicle's centre console.

The court dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting a 17-year-old complainant who worked as a dishwasher and cashier at a restaurant where the defendant was employed as a cook.

The alleged assault occurred on July 19, 2013, in the takeout counter area of the restaurant kitchen.

The complainant testified that the defendant engaged in unwanted touching of her buttocks and groin area over several weeks, culminating in a more serious incident on the date in question.

The defendant denied the allegations, claiming the physical contact was incidental to the tight working conditions in the kitchen.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was preferable to the defendant's, certain inconsistencies and improbabilities in her account, combined with the defendant's testimony that raised reasonable doubt, resulted in an acquittal.

The defendant pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm, and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The incident occurred when the defendant, having consumed 10-12 drinks, drove at excessive speed through a residential area and collided with trees and a light post, injuring his passenger.

The defendant fled the scene and fabricated a false story to police.

The Crown sought 8-12 months incarceration; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, considering the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and significant cognitive impairments resulting from a prior brain injury, while balancing denunciation and deterrence objectives.

The defendant was charged with two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance: (1) being away from his place of residence without his surety, and (2) possessing cellular phones and other prohibited communication devices.

The trial examined surveillance evidence from police officers and testimony from the defendant's brother.

The court found the defendant not guilty on count 1 due to ambiguity in the written recognizance regarding whether the condition was actually imposed, and guilty on count 2 based on credible police observations of the defendant in possession of a cellular telephone.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his ability to do so was impaired by a drug, contrary to section 253 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown established that the defendant drove erratically after voluntarily consuming Alprazolam (Xanax), a non-prescribed anti-anxiety drug obtained from a friend, in addition to his prescribed Clonazepam.

The defendant argued he had developed tolerance to his prescribed medication over several years and did not intend to drive while impaired.

The court found that the defendant's voluntary ingestion of the non-prescribed drug, combined with his prior knowledge of its effects and warnings against mixing drugs, established the requisite mens rea for the offence.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with multiple offences arising from a domestic violence relationship spanning approximately four months.

The Crown withdrew several charges and invited dismissal of another during trial.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault, forcible confinement, threatening death, and failure to comply with two probation orders to keep the peace.

The court acquitted the defendant of sexual assault, mischief, and one threatening death charge.

The decision turned on the credibility of the complainant and defendant, both substance abusers, but the court found corroborating evidence from third-party witnesses and medical documentation regarding the May 16, 2014 incident persuasive.