Katie Scott

The applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside a co-accused, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of trial was 1156 days.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including time taken to retain counsel and unavailability for scheduled dates, as well as exceptional circumstances arising from the co-accused's counsel's conflict of interest and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan, and the court found the Crown took reasonable steps to move the joint prosecution forward.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The Crown prosecuted two accused arising from the exploitation of two underage complainants in the sex trade in Brantford hotel rooms over two time periods.

The trial judge undertook an extensive credibility and reliability assessment of the complainants, accepted their material evidence, and found corroboration in hotel evidence, phone extraction reports, online ad evidence, police testimony, and seized items.

Applying the human trafficking framework and exploitation factors, the court found that one accused recruited, transported, controlled, deceived, isolated, and financially exploited the complainants, and that the co-accused facilitated the procuring offence by acting in concert, supplying funds and a phone, and participating in the hotel arrangements.

Guilty findings were entered on the trafficking, material benefit, advertising, procuring, identity-information, and proceeds counts.

The accused, Jevanny Walters, Collin Walters, and Raymond Ellis, were charged with unlawful confinement and robbery stemming from two separate incidents at a gaming house.

Jevanny Walters and Raymond Ellis were charged in connection with the first robbery, and all three were charged in relation to the second.

The Crown conceded that unlawful confinement was not established for the second robbery.

The primary issue was the identification of the perpetrators, relying on surveillance footage, cell phone records, and similar act evidence.

The court found Jevanny Walters guilty on all remaining counts (1, 2, and 4) and Collin Walters guilty on Count 4.

Raymond Ellis was acquitted on all counts (1, 2, and 4), as the court found a reasonable doubt regarding his possession and use of a key cell phone at the time of the robberies, despite circumstantial evidence.

Farzana Qureshi was convicted by a jury of drug and firearms-related offences, and pleaded guilty to three drug charges.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a significant criminal record and breach of prohibition orders, alongside extraordinary mitigating factors, particularly the offender's significant rehabilitation efforts since her arrest.

The Crown sought a five-year global sentence, while the defence sought time served (approximately 30 months).

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 30 months, but, in light of extensive pre-trial custody and house arrest credit, issued a suspended sentence of time served plus two years of probation, emphasizing the unique and compelling evidence of rehabilitation.

The offender was convicted of human trafficking, procuring, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and related offences against an Indigenous woman over a four-year period.

The offender controlled the victim through violence, psychological manipulation, and financial exploitation, culminating in a severe aggravated assault where he severed her Achilles tendon with a broken glass.

The court applied the Tang factors to assess the aggravating circumstances and sentenced the offender to a global term of 13 years' imprisonment, including a consecutive sentence for choking, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court convicted the accused of multiple human trafficking, procuring, sexual assault, assault, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, and recognizance breach offences arising from a prolonged exploitative relationship in which the complainant was groomed, controlled, prostituted, and physically abused for the accused's financial benefit.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's exculpatory account as unbelievable and found the complainant credible and reliable notwithstanding her traumatic background, substance abuse history, criminal record, and delayed disclosure.

The court held that exploitation under the trafficking provisions includes psychological harm and that consent was no defence to the trafficking-related charges.

External corroboration from photographs, video surveillance, police observations, and medical evidence strongly supported the complainant's account of the final assault.

The accused was acquitted only on the animal injury count due to evidentiary uncertainty.

The accused, Ahmed Farah, was found guilty by a jury of weapons trafficking for the benefit of a criminal organization, conspiracy to traffic firearms, and unlawful possession of a firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his leadership role in the "Dixon City Bloods" gang, extensive criminal record, and efforts to evade police, and mitigating factors such as his age, education, family support, and aspirations for a positive lifestyle.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, reduced to 8 years after accounting for four years of pre-sentence custody credit, despite the accused's significant institutional misconduct.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication order.

The court also ordered that the accused serve one-half of his sentence for the criminal organization offence before parole eligibility, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

This ruling addresses the admissibility and scope of expert evidence from Det. John Margetson regarding coded language in illicit drug culture during a criminal trial for weapons and drug trafficking.

The court found Det. Margetson qualified as an expert in street-level drug distribution and allowed him to testify on general drug trafficking techniques, prices, methods, and common coded language/slang.

However, he was prohibited from providing contextual interpretations of specific intercepted private communications or offering opinions on the comparative likelihood of meanings in specific factual circumstances, to prevent the expert from usurping the jury's role as the trier of fact on the ultimate issue.

In a joint trial for firearms and drug trafficking offences associated with a criminal organization, the Crown sought to introduce non-expert recognition evidence from a police officer identifying several non-accused individuals in photographs found on the accused's electronic devices.

The accused objected, arguing the officer lacked sufficient prior acquaintance, the evidence was hearsay, and its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value.

The court applied the 'prior acquaintance/better position' test and ruled the evidence admissible for seven of the eight individuals, finding the officer had sufficient prior interactions to reliably identify them and that the self-identification fell under a recognized hearsay exception or was admissible for a non-hearsay purpose.

The co-accused, MacGyver Edwards, brought a motion to remove Edward Sapiano as counsel of record for Tristan Lall due to a conflict of interest.

Mr. Sapiano had previously interviewed Mr. Edwards at a detention centre shortly after his arrest, before realizing they were co-accused in the same murder.

The court found that a solicitor-client relationship was formed during that interview, imparting a duty of loyalty and confidentiality.

Despite a prior waiver signed by Mr. Edwards, the court held that the risk of Mr. Sapiano taking an adverse position against his former client undermined public confidence in the administration of justice.

The motion was granted, and Mr. Sapiano was disqualified.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking in crack cocaine and possession of property obtained by crime, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging police entrapment.

The accused argued that the undercover officer lacked reasonable suspicion prior to initiating a telephone call that led to the drug transaction.

The court held that police were entitled to make the investigative call without prior reasonable suspicion and that reasonable suspicion arose during the conversation before the accused was provided an opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found the police conduct did not constitute random virtue testing and did not create an undue risk of inducing innocent individuals to commit crimes.

The entrapment application was dismissed.