Karen Lau-Po-Hung

Donovan Shah appealed his convictions for possession of heroin, methamphetamine, fentanyl for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The appeal raised two grounds: whether the trial judge erred in denying leave to cross-examine the search warrant affiant regarding the inclusion of information about dismissed charges, and whether the trial judge improperly used Shah's pretrial silence to assess his credibility.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's decision to deny cross-examination and concluding that the trial judge did not rely on pretrial silence in assessing credibility.

The applicants, Patrick Agpoon and Shea Flemmings, sought a stay of proceedings due to an alleged breach of their s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating total delay, deducting defence-caused delay, and assessing the impact of the global pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

While significant defence delays were attributed to both applicants, the Crown failed to adequately explain a 12-month delay in preferring a direct indictment, particularly given its earlier contemplation of this route and its successful use in a similar case during the pandemic.

The court found that even after reasonable adjustments for defence delay and a limited period for the pandemic, the net delay for both applicants exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling for superior courts.

Consequently, the court found an infringement of their s. 11(b) rights and stayed the charges.

Three defendants, Levi Alexander, Vejay Alexander, and Lamar Cyrus, pleaded guilty to manslaughter after a planned robbery of a modified starter's pistol resulted in the unintentional shooting death of Alex Perlmutter.

Lamar Cyrus also pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm.

The court accepted joint sentencing recommendations, emphasizing the egregious nature of the offence, the defendants' disregard for court orders (firearms prohibitions, probation conditions), and their serious criminal records.

Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas (though late) and the harshness of pre-sentencing custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The victim's family provided impact statements detailing their profound loss.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder following a fatal shooting in a parking lot outside a nightclub.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an alleged eyewitness with a criminal lifestyle and a history as a police informant, as well as circumstantial evidence of post-offence conduct.

The court found the key eyewitness's testimony to be highly unreliable due to numerous internal and external inconsistencies, and concluded that the accused's post-offence conduct did not support an inference of guilt.

Applying the W.(D) test, the court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused, Jason Bartley, charged with firearms offences, sought to introduce evidence regarding two confidential informants who received benefits contingent on arrests or discovery of illegal items.

The Crown objected on grounds of lack of notice, "innocence at stake" requirements, and lack of "air of reality" to the third-party suspect defence.

The court dismissed the Crown's objections, finding that the evidence was logically relevant to the underlying facts of the offence and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by its minimal prejudicial effect.

During a multi-accused trial for second-degree murder, counsel for one of the co-accused suggested in his closing address that a witness had 'let the truth slip out' in a prior police statement when she mentioned seeing another co-accused with a knife.

The other co-accused brought an application for a mistrial, arguing the address was highly prejudicial.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding that the closing address did not compromise trial fairness and that any potential prejudice could be cured by a strong limiting instruction to the jury regarding the permissible use of prior inconsistent statements.

The accused were charged with second-degree murder.

Prior to jury selection, two of the accused brought a Charter application to exclude evidence of a street encounter with police the day after the homicide, arguing their rights under ss. 7, 8, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated.

The court found that the accused were psychologically detained when four officers approached them, separated them, and questioned them without advising them of their right to counsel.

The court held that the officers' failure to properly record the encounter and their attempts to minimize it as a 'social call' exacerbated the breach.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the court also noted the Crown failed to prove the voluntariness of the statements due to the lack of a reliable record.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault arising from a violent street attack on September 30, 2013, outside Sang's Restaurant in Toronto.

The attack involved six assailants attacking three victims, resulting in the death of Danny La from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both defendants to trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault charges, but rejected the attempted murder charge and the Crown's theory of constructive first degree murder based on forcible confinement.