J. R. Presser

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm after police found a large quantity of drugs, a loaded gun, and $40,000 in cash in a hidden compartment in the trunk of his car.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the hidden compartment or the contraband, suggesting that his former intimate partner or her associates planted the items to frame him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unbelievable and found that the only reasonably plausible inference on the totality of the evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused applied for the production of private records relating to the complainant, specifically data extracted from the complainant's phone.

Following a Stage One order where the records were produced to the court for review, the court conducted a Stage Two analysis to determine if production to the defence was necessary in the interests of justice.

Balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy rights, the court ordered some records produced, some produced with redactions, and others withheld.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a shooting outside a party venue.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the recognition identification evidence of a police officer who identified the accused as the shooter from poor-quality surveillance videos, based on a single prior traumatic encounter.

The court admitted the officer's recognition evidence but ultimately gave it little weight due to reliability concerns, including the poor quality of the images and the lack of distinctive features.

After conducting its own comparison of the accused with the video images, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the shooter's identity and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The applicant was arrested for domestic assault.

Police subsequently discovered evidence of drug trafficking, leading to a search warrant for his residence and vehicle, where drugs, cash, and a firearm were found.

The applicant brought preliminary motions alleging multiple Charter breaches, including unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) and denial of the right to counsel (s. 10(b)), seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2) and to quash the search warrant.

The court found breaches of s. 8 (warrantless entry into the vehicle and residence) and s. 10(b) (delay in facilitating access to counsel).

However, the court held that the search warrant remained valid after excising unconstitutionally obtained information and that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The offender, a youthful first offender, was found guilty of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and possessing a firearm without a licence.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the lesser charge.

In sentencing, the court balanced the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence against the offender's significant rehabilitation, his role as the primary caregiver to a special needs child, and the collateral consequences of incarceration.

The court imposed a punitive conditional sentence of two years less 24 days, followed by three years of probation.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences after police found a loaded handgun in a bag left on a bar patio.

The accused brought a Charter application arguing that his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated during the police investigation.

The court found that the accused had not abandoned the bag and had a reasonable expectation of privacy in it, making the warrantless search a violation of s. 8.

The court also found that the accused was arbitrarily detained during a parole compliance check, violating s. 9, and that police breached his ss. 10(a) and 10(b) rights by failing to promptly advise him of the reasons for his detention and his right to counsel.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the cumulative effect of the serious Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the firearm.

Without the firearm, the Crown could not prove its case, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 mg.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent on the basis that a 'deficient sample' registered by the approved instrument constituted a 'sample' under s. 320.31(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, thereby requiring a new system calibration check before the next sample.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, holding that a deficient sample is not a 'sample' within the meaning of the provision and that there is no implied requirement for a calibration check immediately before each sample.

The court also rejected the respondent's argument that the certificate of qualified technician was inadmissible hearsay, finding itself bound by horizontal stare decisis.

A new trial was ordered.

The applicant brought pre-trial applications seeking to exclude fingerprint evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and to sever counts on the indictment.

The applicant argued that the RCMP's retention and the Toronto Police Service's access to his youth fingerprints after the expiration of the access period under the Youth Criminal Justice Act violated his section 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the retention and use of the youth records were not authorized by law, constituting a serious section 8 breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the fingerprint evidence.

The application to sever the firearms counts was dismissed, as the applicant failed to establish that severance was required in the interests of justice.

The accused was charged with possession of crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, possession of identity documents, and breach of probation.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused had knowledge and control of drugs found in a backpack in a taxi and in a locked bedroom at his residence.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on the drug, proceeds of crime, identity document, and probation breach charges, but acquitted him of possessing property knowing it was obtained by crime due to lack of evidence regarding his knowledge of the IDs' origins.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion seeking the exclusion of evidence (drugs and firearms) seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence, alleging violations of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The applicant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient evidence to ground a reasonable belief for the search, and that police violated his right to counsel by delaying access, failing to hold off on questioning, and delaying notification of additional charges.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the ITO contained compelling, credible, and corroborated information from confidential informants.

The court also found no section 10(b) breaches, concluding that the delay in accessing counsel was reasonable to ensure privacy, the questioning was justified by officer safety, and the delay in notifying the applicant of new charges did not impact his Charter-protected interests.

Following a trial where the accused was found guilty of two counts of sexual assault, the court considered whether entering convictions on both counts would violate the rule against multiple convictions.

The court found that the two assaults constituted a single transaction with sufficient factual and legal nexus.

On the joint position of the parties, the court entered a conviction on the first count and conditionally stayed the second count pursuant to the Kienapple rule.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter at a house party where both parties consumed significant amounts of alcohol.

The complainant had almost no memory of the events and awoke the next day suspecting she had been sexually assaulted.

The accused testified that the sexual encounter was consensual.

The court applied the W. (D.) framework to assess credibility and considered whether the complainant had the capacity to consent and whether she subjectively consented.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant lacked the capacity to consent or that she did not consent, as there were reasonable inferences available other than guilt.

The accused was found not guilty.

The applicant sought bail pending his summary conviction appeal after being convicted of unlawfully entering a dwelling house, theft, possession of property obtained by crime, and threatening death.

The Crown conceded that the applicant would surrender into custody and that his detention was not required in the public interest, but argued the appeal was frivolous.

The court found that the applicant's proposed fresh evidence regarding his extreme intoxication on the day of the offences raised an arguable ground of appeal concerning his capacity to form specific intent.

The application for bail pending appeal was granted.

The applicant, a homeless individual with a lengthy criminal record, sought release on a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He had been detained on secondary grounds and had spent nearly five months in pre-trial custody.

The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his prior failures to attend court and his status as a member of a vulnerable population under s. 493.2.

Finding that the time he would spend in custody before trial would likely exceed any proportionate sentence, the court concluded that his continued detention was not justified and ordered his release on his own recognizance with conditions.