J. Sandy Tse

The appellant appealed his conviction for firearms and narcotics offences, arguing that police surveillance violated his s. 8 Charter rights, the initial search warrant was invalid due to misrepresentations, and the evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, or that the police conduct constituted an abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the police surveillance from a distance on neighbouring property did not violate a reasonable expectation of privacy.

While acknowledging minor s. 8 breaches related to delayed reporting and a defective warrant, the court upheld the trial judge's decision not to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and found no abuse of process, noting the police trespass was not serious and based on erroneous legal advice.

The appellant was convicted of attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to wound.

The primary issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.

Two Crown witnesses gave conflicting evidence: one victim initially denied recognizing the shooter but later identified the appellant at trial, while the appellant's former co-accused initially identified the appellant but later testified that he himself was the shooter.

The trial judge admitted the co-accused's preliminary inquiry testimony for its truth under the principled exception to hearsay.

The trial judge failed to provide a W.(D.) instruction regarding the exculpatory identification evidence of both witnesses.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the jury required proper instruction on how to use the conflicting exculpatory evidence in assessing whether a reasonable doubt existed.

The appellant was convicted of voyeurism after a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown's case was that during a camping trip, the appellant used his cellphone to record the complainant changing into her bathing suit.

The appellant denied intentionally recording.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's reasoning regarding the intentional nature of the recording, arguing the trial judge engaged in speculation.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error.

The trial judge had made clear findings that the appellant's conduct—including plugging in the phone as a pretext, positioning it to record, and the series of steps required to activate the video function—demonstrated intentional conduct beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant, a cocaine dealer, was arrested in possession of a loaded semi-automatic Ruger pistol, cocaine, and cash.

He was convicted of firearm and drug-related offences after a trial by judge alone.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his convictions on Charter grounds, arguing that police violated his rights to be free from arbitrary detention and unreasonable search when they entered a private backyard without permission.

The majority (Doherty and Brown JJ.A.) upheld the convictions, finding the police entry lawful under the implied licence doctrine and the detention justified by reasonable suspicion.

Lauwers J.A. dissented, finding the police entry unlawful and the detention arbitrary, and would have excluded the evidence and acquitted the appellant.

The Crown sought certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the respondent on various firearms, ammunition, and drug offences.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by repeatedly assuming the role of the trier of fact, weighing evidence, drawing factual inferences, and failing to consider the circumstantial evidence cumulatively.

The preliminary inquiry judge had discounted individual pieces of evidence and failed to assess whether a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict.

The Superior Court quashed the discharge and ordered the preliminary inquiry judge to commit the respondent to stand trial on the specified charges.

The offenders were convicted of multiple counts of mortgage fraud involving 11 properties and 27 mortgages over a 7-year period.

They used stolen identities, forged documents, and false powers of attorney to obtain mortgage financing, resulting in over $1 million in losses to financial institutions and the CMHC.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence for large-scale frauds.

Each offender was sentenced to 4 years in a penitentiary.

The court also ordered fines in lieu of forfeiture totaling $495,535.04 and a joint and several restitution order in the same amount payable to the CMHC.