Joseph S. Nadel

The accused, a paternal grandfather, was charged with manslaughter in the death of a 13-month-old child in his care.

The child suffered a fatal traumatic brain injury while under the accused's supervision.

The Crown alleged the accused violently shook the child and impacted the child's head against a hard surface.

The defence contended the child's injuries resulted from an accidental collision with a large family dog.

The court found the accused guilty of manslaughter, rejecting the defence theory as internally inconsistent, medically implausible, and unsupported by credible evidence.

The court determined the accused assaulted the child through violent shaking, which constituted the unlawful act causing death.

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm after driving his vehicle head-on into another vehicle at excessive speed while impaired by alcohol and lorazepam.

The victim sustained severe, life-altering injuries including broken legs, crushed knee, and skull trauma.

The Crown sought 30 months imprisonment emphasizing general deterrence for otherwise law-abiding individuals.

The defence sought a suspended sentence or intermittent custody, highlighting the offender's psychological fragility, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed 18 months in reformatory followed by two years probation, finding general deterrence to be the predominant sentencing principle while considering the offender's lack of criminal record and psychological vulnerability.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the officer had reasonable grounds to investigate, the officer conducted an investigative detention and interrogation of the accused while the accused was naked without providing rights to counsel.

The court found breaches of section 8 (unreasonable seizure) and section 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court excluded the accused's verbal admissions, observations of impairment related to balance and coordination, and breath test results under section 24(2) analysis, finding that admitting such evidence would condone unacceptable police conduct and Charter violations.

However, observations regarding the accused's eyes and breath odour were admitted.

The over 80 charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with four indictable offences: sexual assault, sexual interference, inviting a child to sexually touch the accused, and threatening death.

The complainant, a child, testified that the accused, his uncle, sexually assaulted him repeatedly over approximately 18 months while the child was between 7 and 8 years old.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and rejected the accused's denials as internally and externally inconsistent.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, emphasizing the compelling nature of the child's evidence and the accused's implausible testimony regarding constant supervision and an open bedroom door.

The accused pleaded guilty to five offences involving the sexual abuse of a four-year-old child: sexual interference, invitation to touch for a sexual purpose, making child pornography through text communications, possessing child pornography, and agreeing with the child's mother to commit sexual interference.

The offences occurred over a three-day period in January 2016.

The accused was 27 years old at the time and had no prior criminal record.

The sentencing hearing required the court to balance aggravating factors including the extreme vulnerability of the victim, the planned and deliberate nature of the offences, and the depravity of the text messages, against mitigating factors including guilty pleas, cooperation with authorities, expressions of remorse, and family support.

The court imposed a total sentence of six years less pre-sentence custody credit.

The accused was charged with five firearms-related offences following a search warrant executed at his residence.

He conceded guilt on three counts relating to careless storage and unlicensed possession of two long guns found under his mattress.

He denied knowledge of an SKS assault rifle and ammunition found hidden in his basement and a cache of 7.62mm ammunition found in his garage.

The court found that the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused had knowledge of and was in possession of all three firearms and the ammunition.

The court rejected the defence theories that someone else had stored or planted the weapons without the accused's knowledge, finding such scenarios contrary to common sense and logic.

The accused was convicted on all five counts.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained during a Canada Revenue Agency audit of his company and subsequent search warrants, alleging breaches of sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant contended that the CRA auditor's predominant purpose was to investigate his alleged criminal tax liability rather than conduct a civil compliance audit.

The court found that the audit remained a bona fide compliance audit until the auditor received answers to the first query on July 14, 2010, at which point the auditor's predominant purpose shifted to a penal investigation.

The court excluded evidence obtained through the second query but admitted evidence from the first query and the search warrant execution.

The accused was charged with seven offences arising from the discovery of a loaded prohibited handgun, two small bags of marijuana, $1,000 in cash, and three cell phones in a rental vehicle he was driving.

The Crown argued that the cumulative circumstances—including the pervasive smell of fresh marijuana, the identical packaging of two marijuana bags, the gun's positioning suggesting placement by a right-handed person, and the accused's rubber bands on his left wrist—demonstrated knowledge and possession of all items.

The defence argued that the vehicle was rented by another person, the gun was completely hidden, and there was no forensic evidence linking the accused to the firearm.

The trial judge found that the only rational inference from the totality of circumstances was that the accused knew about and possessed the gun and other items, and convicted on all counts.

The Ministry of Labour appealed the acquittal of Dufferin Construction Company and supervisor David Pimpinella on charges arising from a workplace accident where a large slab of ice fell from a tunnel face wall, injuring an employee.

The trial judge dismissed all three counts, finding the Crown had failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellate court upheld the acquittals on Counts 1 and 3 (employer and supervisor duties under the Occupational Health and Safety Act), finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate and the verdicts were supported by the evidence.

However, the court allowed the appeal on Count 2, a technical charge regarding missing safety markings on crane and basket equipment, and entered a conviction on that count.

The accused was charged with care and control while being over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved that breath samples were received directly into an approved instrument as required by section 258(1)(c)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The qualified technician testified that the accused provided breath samples into the instrument, but did not explicitly testify that the samples were received directly into the instrument.

The court found that the evidence was insufficient to establish this critical requirement beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused, holding that judicial notice cannot be used to supply this proof and that the liberty interest of the accused requires strict interpretation of the statutory requirement.

The applicant sought to quash a search warrant executed at his residence on April 9, 2013, arguing that his Charter rights under section 8 were infringed.

The applicant contended that the Information To Obtain (ITO) was misleading and deficient, failing to demonstrate credibly-based probability that cocaine would be found at his home.

He also argued the warrant was facially invalid because it lacked a start time for the search.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the surveillance evidence sufficiently corroborated the confidential informant information to establish reasonable grounds to believe cocaine would be found at the residence.

The court noted deficiencies in the ITO's compliance with R. v. Rocha regarding disclosure of confidential informants' criminal records and motivation, but found these did not vitiate the warrant.

The applicant sought disclosure of the identities of two confidential informants whose information formed the basis for a search warrant executed at his residence.

The applicant was charged with possessing a semi-automatic assault rifle and an illegal capacity magazine found in his basement.

He argued that his innocence was at stake and that disclosure was necessary to demonstrate that the items were planted or that one of the informants was a suspect with motive and opportunity to plant the items.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold test requiring him to establish that the information sought was not available from any other source and that he was otherwise unable to raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with two counts of human trafficking offences (exercising control over movements for exploitation and receiving money from exploitation), three counts of assault with a weapon, two counts of threatening, three counts of assault, and four counts of breach of recognizance.

The trial involved a credibility assessment of the complainant, who admitted to being a con artist and fraudster, against the accused's denials.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon, simple assault, and breach of recognizance counts, but acquitted him of the trafficking offences due to insufficient evidence of control exercised for exploitative purposes.

The court applied a Vetrovec warning regarding the complainant's credibility.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to trial on first degree murder for the death of Shana Carter, alleging the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused's counsel conceded sufficient evidence existed for committal on second degree murder but opposed committal on first degree.

The court found that while the evidence could support inferences of deliberation, the evidence regarding planning was more problematic.

However, applying the legal test for committal, the court determined that a jury could reasonably infer planning from the totality of the evidence, including the accused's motive (protecting his son), his animus toward the deceased, prior attempted strangulation, post-offence conduct (body disposal, cleanup, false statements), and statements to an undercover officer.

The court committed the accused to trial on first degree murder.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a minor complainant during the summer of 2009.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in digital penetration on two occasions while she was staying at his home.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the complainant was an unwelcome intruder whom he had banished from his home after discovering her in a sexual situation with his daughter.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as internally inconsistent and incredible, finding that his professed behavior following the alleged sexual assault of his daughter was unreasonable and unbelievable.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, finding her testimony concrete, guileless, and unexaggerated.

The trial judge found the accused guilty of both counts, with the sexual assault count conditionally stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle, resulting in a conviction on sexual interference.

The accused pleaded guilty to five omnibus fraud counts arising from a sophisticated debit card skimming scheme perpetrated against multiple financial institutions in Hamilton and Niagara.

The scheme involved installing card reader overlays and pinhole cameras on ATMs to capture debit card data and PINs, which were then used to create counterfeit cards for fraudulent purchases and cash withdrawals.

Total losses exceeded $86,000.

The court rejected conditional sentences despite mitigating factors including guilty pleas and first-offender status for one accused, imposing custodial sentences due to the sophisticated nature of the scheme, its extent, premeditation, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was charged with possession of unstamped manufactured tobacco contrary to section 32(1) of the Excise Tax Act, 2001.

The Crown alleged the accused knowingly transported a trailer containing 126 boxes of fine cut tobacco worth approximately $1.3 million.

The defence contended the accused believed he was hauling wooden pallets and had no knowledge of the actual contents.

The trial judge rejected the defence evidence as incredible and found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including the value of the cargo, the locked trailer without documentation, and the accused's decision to avoid a truck inspection station by taking an alternate route.

The defendant was charged with driving while disqualified.

At the conclusion of the Crown's case-in-chief, the defence brought a motion for non-suit, arguing there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew she was disqualified from driving.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's acknowledgment of the prohibition order, combined with the certificate of suspension and deemed knowledge provisions under the Highway Traffic Act, provided sufficient evidence of mens rea for a jury to consider.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with a minor between October 28, 2010 and March 1, 2012, assault of the minor, assault of her new boyfriend, and threatening to kill the boyfriend.

The accused was 20-22 years old during the sexual relationship with the 13-15 year old complainant.

The court imposed a sentence of eight months imprisonment on the sexual interference count, with consecutive sentences of 10 days each on the assault and death threat counts, followed by 15 months probation.

The court applied principles of denunciation and general deterrence while considering the accused's youth, guilty plea, and rehabilitation prospects.

The defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application challenging delay in a summary conviction impaired driving prosecution.

The information was sworn on April 13, 2011, and the trial was scheduled to commence on January 30, 2013, representing a delay of 24 months and 19 days.

The court found that systemic delay to the third trial date of November 16, 2012 amounted to 12 months and 5 days, which exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months for summary conviction proceedings.

The court granted the application and stayed the charge, finding that the defendant's right to trial within a reasonable period of time had been infringed.