Kathy Nedelkopoulos

The defendant, Liibaan Yusuf, was charged with firearm possession offences under the Criminal Code following a new trial ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence regarding the firearm's location in a car where Yusuf was a passenger.

The court found that while Yusuf's knowledge and control of the firearm was one reasonable inference, it was not the only one, given that other individuals had access to the vehicle and the evidence was ambiguous.

The Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

The accused, Anthony Fanone, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance by alcohol or drug, and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The central issue was the lawfulness of a single breath sample "rule-out test" administered during a Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) examination.

The court found that the single sample "rule-out test" was not authorized by law, constituting a breach of the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

However, the court found no s. 10(b) Charter breach regarding the right to counsel.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court admitted the breathalyzer results, finding the Charter breach was committed in good faith and had minimal impact.

The accused was found guilty of both impaired driving and the "80 and over" offence, but due to the Kienapple principle, a conviction was entered for the more serious "80 and over" offence, and a conditional stay was entered for the impaired driving charge.

The applicants, Joel Gomes and Stacey Downey, sought a stay of charges for multiple masked robberies due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from information sworn to anticipated trial end was 23 months and 16 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the significant delay was attributable to the Crown's failure to provide essential disclosure, including police notes of alleged confessions and timely DNA analysis results, which were crucial for the defence to make an informed election of trial mode.

The Crown's arguments of defence delay and case complexity were rejected, as the Crown failed to act diligently or proactively to minimize the delay.

The application was granted, and the charges against both accused were stayed.

The accused, R.G., was charged with sexual assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose against his spouse.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence to be credible despite defence arguments regarding her memory issues stemming from a traumatic brain injury.

The defence's attempt to establish a motive to fabricate on the complainant's part, involving an alleged paramour, was rejected as contrived and self-serving.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, emphasizing that the Crown's evidence was clear, powerful, and compelling.

A pre-sentence report was ordered, and uncharged sexual assault allegations were noted as potential aggravating factors for sentencing.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having excess alcohol in his system.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of his vehicle, intoxicated, with the vehicle stopped in the middle lane of eastbound traffic on Sheppard Avenue East at Don Mills Road at approximately 2:00 a.m.

The Crown's case was that the accused had care or control of the vehicle.

The defence argued that the accused's girlfriend had been driving and that the accused was placed in the driver's seat by his girlfriend while she cleaned up vomit, and that he was waiting for his father to pick them up.

The trial judge found that although the accused did not drive the vehicle to the location, he engaged in a course of conduct associated with the motor vehicle that posed a realistic risk of danger to persons or property, thereby establishing care or control under the third route identified in case law.

The accused was found guilty on both counts, with the impaired care or control charge stayed to avoid double punishment.

Aline Zeitoune, a former Passport Officer, was found guilty of five criminal counts, including breach of trust, procuring forged passports, forgery, making false statements, and making forged passports available.

She participated in a scheme to enable imposters to obtain genuine Canadian passports by bypassing the normal application process.

The court considered the gravity of the breach of trust, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and the principle of parity with co-accused Moshe Gur.

Despite mitigating factors such as no prior record and family support, her abuse of public trust as an insider warranted a substantial penitentiary sentence.

The defendant, a Passport Canada officer, was charged with breach of trust, forgery, and related offences for her role in a scheme that enabled imposters to obtain genuine Canadian passports.

The Crown alleged she knowingly allowed applicants with counterfeit documents to bypass normal screening procedures and approved their applications.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly established her knowing participation in the scheme.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts, with the court applying the doctrine of innocent agency to hold her liable as a principal for the forgery offences committed by other unwitting passport employees.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges alleging abuse by a stepfather against two stepsons over many years in the family home.

The court treated the case as turning on credibility and reliability, considered the principles governing delayed disclosure, prior inconsistent or incomplete accounts, and the effect of extensive criminal records involving dishonesty on witness assessment.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court held the complainants' evidence did not provide a basis to reject the accused's denials and that reasonable doubt remained.

All counts were dismissed.

The applicant, Jesse Bonello, charged with robbery and related offences, sought disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to the principal Crown witnesses, Tyrone Saunders and Lauren Smith, under *Stinchcombe* and, alternatively, via an *O'Connor* application.

The Crown argued the records were not in its possession and thus not subject to *Stinchcombe* disclosure.

The court found that the occurrence reports were not "fruits of the investigation" and therefore not subject to *Stinchcombe* disclosure.

Applying the *O'Connor* principles, the court determined that the applicant met the "likely relevance" threshold for Tyrone Saunders' records due to his extensive criminal record and expected credibility issues, ordering a review of those sealed documents.

However, the application for Lauren Smith's records was dismissed as a "fishing expedition" due to the absence of a criminal record or case-specific evidence demonstrating likely relevance.

The accused, Conrey Zavier Francis, was charged with armed robbery, using an imitation firearm, and disguising his face in connection with two bank robberies on January 2, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification, security video footage, and text messages.

The court found significant inconsistencies in eyewitness descriptions of the perpetrator's height, weight, skin color, race, and the hand used to hold the weapon.

An in-dock identification was deemed unreliable.

The security videos were of poor quality, and the text messages were open to multiple interpretations.

Consequently, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the accused's identity and acquitted him on all charges.

Carleton Taylor pleaded guilty to being a party to a robbery involving the kidnapping of the victim, Reth Tork, and the fraudulent use of his debit card.

While Taylor's role was peripheral to the violent aspects, he participated for financial gain.

The Crown sought a 4-year custodial sentence, and the defense sought 2 years.

The court considered Taylor's significant criminal record, lack of pro-social initiatives, and the victim's impact statement, balanced against his guilty plea and positive family relationships.

The court sentenced Taylor to 3 years in custody, followed by 2 years' probation, with credit for 476 days of pre-trial custody.

Ancillary orders for DNA and a 10-year firearms prohibition were also imposed.

Sentencing for historical sexual assaults committed by an adult uncle against two nieces aged 11 to 13 over multiple years.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence predominated in sentencing for child sexual abuse, particularly where the offender abused a position of familial trust and caused lasting psychological harm to multiple complainants.

Although a conditional sentence was legally available because the offences pre-dated current restrictions, the court found no exceptional circumstances making such a sentence fit.

Consecutive six-month sentences were imposed for a total of 12 months, together with DNA, SOIRA, and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault and two counts of forcible confinement against his common-law partner, arising from three alleged incidents between August 2012 and August 2013.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the complainant, who delayed reporting the incidents for over a year and had previously denied any history of domestic abuse to police during a separate incident in December 2013.

The court found numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's evidence, including her explanation for deleting photographic evidence of her injuries.

Concluding that the complainant's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, the court found the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals on all counts.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child complainant.

The court applied the common sense approach to child evidence while emphasizing that the Crown still bore the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Significant inconsistencies between the complainant's testimony, prior police statements, and the mother's evidence, combined with evidence of repeated questioning by the mother before successive disclosures, undermined reliability.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with 11 criminal offences including criminal negligence causing death, human trafficking, and drug trafficking offences arising from a party at his apartment where a sex trade worker died from a drug overdose.

At a judicial interim release hearing, the Crown sought to detain the accused pending trial on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found significant deficiencies in the Crown's case and treated the apparent strength as neutral.

However, the court concluded that the proposed plan of release was insufficient to address concerns regarding the accused's involvement in pimping, prostitution, and drug trafficking activities.

The court ordered the accused held in pre-trial custody.

The accused sought judicial interim release (bail) on charges of two counts of robbery armed with a handgun, one count of disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, and one count of assault with a weapon.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused bore the burden of proof due to the firearm allegations under section 515(6)(a)(vii).

The court found the Crown's case to be weak, based primarily on circumstantial evidence including video surveillance, vehicle identification, and clothing similarities.

The court granted bail with conditions, finding the proposed plan of release adequate and that detention would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with exercising control over a 17-year-old for the purpose of aiding her to engage in prostitution, procuring her to become a prostitute, and living on the avails of her prostitution.

The Crown conceded there was no evidence of procuring.

The court found the accused not guilty of the remaining charges, concluding that merely driving the complainant to a 'date' did not constitute exercising control over her movements, and that there was evidence to the contrary rebutting the presumption of living on the avails, as the accused never received or asked for money from the complainant.

A judicial interim release hearing for an 18-year-old accused charged with multiple offences including break and enter with intent, possession of property obtained by crime, and failure to comply with bail conditions.

The accused had an extensive criminal history dating back to 2010, including weapons offences, break and enters, and trafficking-related charges.

The Crown's primary concern was public safety under the secondary ground.

The court found the Crown had a very strong case based on eyewitness identification, GPS tracking, and recovered stolen property.

Although the accused's mother offered to act as surety with additional financial pledges and the defence proposed a mental health support plan, the court determined the proposed release plan was inadequate to address public safety concerns given the accused's escalating pattern of criminal conduct, history of non-compliance with court orders, and substance abuse issues.

The accused was tried on multiple assault counts, one sexual assault count, and a mischief count arising from allegations by a former spouse during and after a short marriage.

The court found the complainant's evidence vague, internally inconsistent, and materially undermined by memory failures and by partial corroboration of the accused's account from another witness.

Applying the W(D.) framework and the requirement to assess the evidence in its totality, the court held that mere preference for the complainant's evidence could not ground conviction.

The Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an encounter with a 13‑year‑old complainant whom he met through an online dating website.

The accused denied that sexual activity occurred and asserted the parties only briefly met in a park.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence and found it did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Despite inconsistencies on peripheral matters, the court found the complainant credible and reliable, noting her lack of motive to fabricate and corroboration from a friend regarding subsequent events.

The court concluded that sexual intercourse occurred when the complainant was 13 and the accused was 25, proving both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.