Kas Marynick

The court considered the admissibility of two statements made by Lovepreet Singh, charged with dangerous driving causing death.

The first was a roadside statement to police while Singh was being treated for burns; the second was an audio-recorded statement at the hospital.

The Crown sought to admit only the hospital statement.

The court found that the Crown had not proven voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, citing concerns about an unrecorded pre-statement conversation, a partial caution, and potential inducement.

The hospital statement was excluded as involuntary.

The court dismissed the applicant’s motion to set aside a previous order dismissing her claim for life insurance proceeds allegedly paid in violation of a separation agreement.

The decision addresses the availability of summary judgment in family law, the requirements for setting aside an order, and the jurisdictional boundaries between the Unified Family Court and the general Superior Court.

The court found no arguable defence on the merits and concluded that the Unified Family Court was not the proper forum for the applicant’s claim against the respondent.

The applicant, Shazad Adam, sought to be appointed as guardian of the person for his father, Shyam Mohamed Adam, who sustained a head injury and whose capacity to manage personal care was in dispute.

Shazad also sought to remove Shyam's spouse, Bibi Hasena Hanuman, and daughter, Selena Shazela Hasena, as attorneys for personal care under a 2019 Power of Attorney.

The court granted leave for the application, declared Shyam incapable of personal care, found Bibi neglectful and in breach of a court order, and removed Bibi and Selena as attorneys.

Shazad was appointed as guardian of the person for one year, subject to a revised guardianship plan.

Costs were awarded to the Public Guardian and Trustee and Shyam's s.3 counsel from Shyam's property, and partial indemnity costs were awarded to Shazad against Bibi.

The accused was convicted of two counts of sexual interference against a 14-year-old victim on January 27, 2014.

The offender, then 36 years old, gave the victim hallucinogenic drugs (ketamine and ecstasy) at his residence and engaged in multiple acts of sexual contact, including digital penetration, attempted intercourse, and fellatio.

He also photographed the victim during the sexual assault.

The sentencing hearing addressed the Crown's request for a 4.5-year penitentiary sentence and the defence's request for a blended sentence of one year imprisonment followed by one year conditional.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4.5 years (54 months) imprisonment, with 2 years on the first count and 2.5 years consecutive on the second count, along with a lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act order and a DNA order.

A boxing coach was charged with assault causing bodily harm after sparring with his 13-year-old student, who sustained a concussion.

The court examined whether the coach's conduct exceeded the student's implied consent to contact within the sport of boxing.

Despite evidence that the coach struck the student multiple times and the student suffered a concussion, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct constituted criminal assault.

The court noted the lack of expert evidence regarding boxing rules, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and the possibility that the student's injury resulted from contact with another sparring partner.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while her blood alcohol content was over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The central issue at trial was whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused and demand breath samples.

The defence challenged the credibility and reliability of the officers' evidence, alleging inconsistencies and omissions in their notes.

The court found that the arresting officer had sufficient grounds based on observations of the accused's driving (headlights off, missing tire, iPad under foot), her demeanor (unsteadiness, fumbling with documents), and the odour of alcohol.

The court rejected the defence's credibility challenges and found the officers' evidence credible and reliable.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide breath samples following a collision with a fire hydrant in Mississauga in the early hours of November 3, 2011.

The Crown established that the accused was intoxicated and in care or control of the vehicle.

The accused challenged whether the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code applied and whether the breath demand was valid.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, determining that he was occupying the driver's seat, presenting a realistic risk of danger, and that the breath demand was valid despite the accused's refusal to comply.

The defendant was convicted after trial on six counts of fraud for stealing approximately $5,000 from the Shelburne Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion Poppy Fund while serving as president.

The Crown sought jail time, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a one-year conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring for the first six months, house arrest restrictions, and a subsequent 12-month probation period.

The court found that while theft from a position of trust is serious and ordinarily requires incarceration, the defendant's age, health status, prior good character, and the disproportionate impact of jail warranted a conditional sentence.

The Crown sought to admit pharmacy prescription records obtained pursuant to a production order as evidence in a trial involving allegations of diverted funds from the Shelburne Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion.

The defendant objected to the admission of the documents.

The court ruled that the records were admissible as business records under the Canada Evidence Act, finding that the electronic documents satisfied the best evidence rule under Sections 31.1 through 31.4 of the Act.

The court found that the records were kept in the usual and ordinary course of business by a disinterested party, with integrity backed by professional obligations imposed by the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

The applicant sought prerogative relief in the nature of certiorari or mandamus to quash a justice of the peace’s endorsement under s. 515(9.1) of the Criminal Code, which stated that detention was primarily due to a previous conviction and thereby barred enhanced pre‑sentence custody credit under s. 719(3.1).

The Superior Court held that mandamus was unavailable because it cannot compel a judicial officer to exercise jurisdiction in a particular manner.

The court further held that certiorari could be available where there is either a jurisdictional error or an error of law on the face of the record, even outside the preliminary inquiry context.

However, the alleged errors relating to the test applied, the record of the detention decision, and the interpretation of s. 515(9.1) were not established.

The application was therefore dismissed.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for multiple firearms offences arising from possession of a loaded restricted handgun in a motor vehicle while subject to several weapons prohibition orders.

The court considered sentencing ranges for possession of loaded handguns and emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the dangers posed by firearms in the Greater Toronto Area.

Significant aggravating factors included the accused’s extensive criminal record, repeated breaches of court orders, and possession of the loaded firearm in a vehicle with other occupants.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s youth, family support, and employment prospects.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of five years consisting of four years for the firearms offences and a consecutive one-year term for breach of a weapons prohibition order, with ancillary orders including DNA collection and forfeiture.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples into an approved screening device.

The court considered two issues: whether the demand was made "forthwith" as required by the Criminal Code, and whether the officer had reasonable suspicion that the accused had alcohol in his body.

The court found that while the officer detected an odour of alcohol on the accused's breath and the accused admitted to consuming one beer hours earlier, the officer's subjective state of mind did not meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

The officer appeared to be seeking to determine whether the accused had any alcohol in his system to contravene the conditions of his G2 driver's licence, rather than acting on a pre-existing reasonable suspicion.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences after police stopped a vehicle following a radio report that a rear passenger was possibly armed.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9, arguing the vehicle stop constituted arbitrary detention and that a flashlight examination of the vehicle interior was an unlawful search.

The court held the accused was not detained in the brief period between the vehicle stop and the observation of a firearm and that the flashlight observation did not constitute a search under s. 8.

The Charter application was dismissed.

Accepting the evidence of police officers that the accused was holding a loaded restricted firearm in his lap before it fell to the floor of the vehicle, the court found possession proven beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused on all counts.