J. Tong

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 following a motor vehicle stop.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing that the samples were not taken as soon as practicable as required by the Criminal Code.

The court examined the timeline of events from the initial stop through the taking of breath samples, identifying both explained and unexplained delays.

Despite finding the case borderline, the court concluded that the breath tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances and admitted the evidence.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with two offences: (1) breach of undertaking for purchasing and possessing alcohol contrary to s. 145(5.1) of the Criminal Code on December 11, 2013, and (2) breach of recognizance for failing to attend court on March 14, 2014, contrary to s. 145(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused had an honest mistake regarding the March 14 court date and acquitted him on the breach of recognizance charge.

However, the court found that the accused knew or was willfully blind to the continuing alcohol prohibition in his undertaking and convicted him on the breach of undertaking charge, rejecting his arguments that he believed the condition had been amended and that the de minimis doctrine applied.

The accused was charged with three offences arising from a motor vehicle collision at Weston Road and Eglinton Avenue West in Toronto: (1) care or control of a motor vehicle with blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit; (2) failure to remain at the scene of an accident; and (3) care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown's theory was that the accused drove a Lexus that fled the collision scene and subsequently had care or control of the vehicle while parked on Cordella Avenue with elevated blood-alcohol levels.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the accused's pre-arrest statements and breath sample results on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court rejected all Charter applications and found the accused guilty on all three counts.

Several First Nations accused sought disclosure of 2013 jury rolls in advance of a planned constitutional application alleging underrepresentation of Indigenous jurors in jury pools.

They argued the records were relevant to a forthcoming application under ss. 7, 11(d), and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and to a potential s. 11(b) delay claim arising from the litigation of that issue.

The court held that the requested materials were governed by the third‑party disclosure framework from R. v. O'Connor because the records were held by a separate government entity rather than the prosecuting Crown.

Applying the likely relevance threshold, the court concluded the jury rolls could assist in determining whether delays associated with the application should be characterized as institutional delay or delay attributable to the accused.

Disclosure was therefore ordered subject to privacy undertakings.

This is a ruling on committal for trial following a three-month preliminary inquiry into Project Marvel, a police investigation into drug and firearm trafficking by members of a criminal organization known as the Young Buck Killers (YBK).

Nine defendants faced sixty-four counts including trafficking and possession of cocaine and other drugs, trafficking and possession of firearms, and conspiracy charges.

The Crown alleged that most defendants committed these offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the YBK criminal organization.

The court applied the test for committal established in R. v. Arcuri, requiring that there be admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit most defendants to trial on the charges, though some counts were discharged where the evidence was insufficient or speculative.

The court's analysis focused on whether the predicate offences were sufficiently connected to the criminal organization and whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.