Kendra Stanyon

The applicant was charged with drug and firearm offences following police searches of a residence and motor vehicles that yielded fentanyl, cocaine, a handgun, ammunition, and cash.

The applicant challenged the validity of the search warrants through a Garofoli review, arguing that the information to obtain (ITO) contained material omissions and misrepresentations that would have prevented the warrants from issuing.

The court conducted a detailed review of the ITO, made various corrections through excision and addition of information, and ultimately found that the corrected ITO provided a sufficient basis for the warrants to have issued.

The court found no deliberate misleading or recklessness by the affiant and upheld the warrants, making the evidence admissible at trial.

This decision addresses the admissibility of ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Mark Bakir, in the prosecution of Alessandro Giammichele for murder.

The court reviews the law on hearsay, including both the traditional state of mind exception and the principled approach, and applies these to various statements made by the deceased to friends and family regarding a loan and the accused's failure to repay.

The court finds most of the statements admissible, with some exceptions for opinion and cumulative evidence.

The sentencing reasons in this first-degree murder case reflect on the complexity of modern criminal trials, the evolution of the justice system, and the application of what the judge terms "spiritual laws" of truth and justice.

The judge, reflecting on a long career, discusses the facts and evidence that led to the conviction, the character and conduct of the accused, and the broader lessons for society.

The sentence imposed is life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years, with ancillary orders including weapons prohibition and DNA order.

This decision addresses the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to order increased compensation for jurors in lengthy criminal jury trials, above the statutory minimums set by regulation.

Justice Skarica reviews the constitutional and historical importance of jury trials, the inadequacy of current compensation, and the inherent jurisdiction of the court to ensure a fair and representative jury.

The court orders increased daily compensation for jurors, as well as improved provision of snacks and meals, to ensure the effective functioning of the jury system and the fair administration of justice.

This case involves the sentencing of David Voss for his significant role in a large-scale art fraud scheme involving forged paintings attributed to the renowned Indigenous artist Norval Morrisseau.

The court emphasized the profound and far-reaching damage caused by the fraud, extending beyond financial losses to the cultural and spiritual identity of Indigenous art and artists.

Voss was sentenced to five years in a penitentiary for two charges of fraud.

Other charges against Voss and all charges against co-accused Diane Champagne were withdrawn.

The court declined to order restitution due to the immense complexity of identifying all victims and quantifying losses, deeming it unmanageable and detrimental to the administration of justice.

A forfeiture order was made for the identified forged artwork.

The three accused, Anand Nath, Suliman Raza, and Naqash Abbasi, were found guilty of first-degree murder and five counts of attempted murder with a firearm following a shooting at a restaurant.

The court considered whether the offense constituted a terrorism offense, finding that while the motive clause (political, religious, or ideological purpose) was met, the intention clause (to intimidate the public) was not.

The court emphasized the aggravating factors, including the planned and deliberate nature of the crimes, the group plan, the gratuitous violence against bystanders, and the profound impact on victims.

The judge imposed concurrent life sentences for all counts for each offender, along with ancillary orders.

Zuvaan Hamilton brought a Charter application to exclude a handgun from his trial, alleging violations of his s. 8 (unreasonable search of phone) and s. 10(b) (delay in right to counsel) Charter rights.

The court found no serious violations of either right.

While there was a minor s. 10(b) breach regarding identity confirmation, it was not serious enough to warrant exclusion.

The search of the phone for identification was deemed lawful.

The delay in facilitating counsel was also found to be reasonable given the circumstances at the police detachment.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The defendant, an Uber driver, was charged with three counts of sexual assault.

He pleaded guilty to two counts but denied the third.

The Crown sought to admit evidence from the admitted assaults as similar fact evidence for the remaining charge.

The court ruled the similar fact evidence admissible, finding its probative value outweighed its prejudicial impact, particularly given the striking similarities in the circumstances of the assaults and the unlikelihood of coincidence.

The defendant was found guilty of the remaining sexual assault charge.

This criminal trial concerned 17 counts of domestic abuse allegations against the accused, Leon Giardino, involving his former spouse, Santina Giardino, between 2013 and 2021.

Charges included assault, assault with a weapon, choking, mischief, uttering threats, and failing to comply with release orders.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for assessing conflicting testimony.

The judge found the accused guilty of 10 counts, including multiple assaults, assault by choking, uttering threats, and one count of failing to comply with a release order, while acquitting on other charges due to insufficient evidence or reasonable doubt.

The Crown brought a pretrial application to admit evidence of similar acts and prior discreditable conduct of the accused in a domestic violence case involving multiple assault charges.

The defence opposed the admission, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial and presumptively inadmissible.

The court, applying the principles from *R. v. Z.W.C.*, denied the Crown's application.

It found that the probative value of the proposed evidence did not outweigh its prejudicial effect, as it largely constituted hearsay or vague observations not directly describing Criminal Code offences, and would risk impermissible bad character reasoning.

The offender, a youthful first offender, was found guilty of receiving a material benefit from the sexual services of three women over a ten-month period.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court found that while the offence was serious and inherently exploitative, it did not involve violence, coercion, or underage complainants.

Emphasizing the principles of individual deterrence and rehabilitation for youthful first offenders, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served under house arrest, followed by 18 months of probation.

During a trial for first degree murder, the Crown requested that the lesser included offence of manslaughter be left to the jury, relying on criminal harassment as the predicate unlawful act.

The defence opposed the request.

The court declined to put manslaughter to the jury, finding no air of reality to the predicate offence of criminal harassment.

Specifically, there was no evidence that the victim knew she was being harassed or reasonably feared for her safety, as the accused's surveillance was intended to be surreptitious.

The Crown and defence sought pre-trial rulings regarding the editing of police statements made by the accused, Mr. Lu and Mr. Dookhram, and an application for severance by Mr. Lu.

The court ruled on various excisions to Mr. Lu's statements, removing highly prejudicial opinions from his grandmother and questions about another witness's credibility, while retaining references to his homosexuality and the officer's interview techniques.

The court declined to edit out Mr. Dookhram's references to triads and fear, prioritizing fairness to him over minimal prejudice to Mr. Lu.

Finally, the court dismissed Mr. Lu's application for severance, finding the preference for joint trials was not rebutted.

The applicant was charged with possession of MDMA for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime following a traffic stop.

The police stopped the taxi the applicant was in while responding to a 911 gun call.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention under s. 9 and unreasonable search under s. 8.

The court found the investigative detention and initial pat-down search were lawful.

However, the subsequent search of the applicant's knapsack in the vehicle violated s. 8, as immediate safety concerns had been alleviated.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court admitted the drug evidence, finding the police acted in good faith and society's interest favoured admission.

In a murder trial, the Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of a 911 call purportedly made by a central Crown witness.

The Crown argued the call was admissible as the best evidence of the event and to rebut recent fabrication.

The defence argued the recording lacked context and amounted to improper oath-helping.

The court ruled the 911 call-back was inadmissible at this stage, finding it devoid of material information and that its admission would serve solely to bolster the witness's credibility before it was attacked, thereby offending the rule against oath-helping.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit four out-of-court statements made by a witness, Kulwant Litt, for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule (a K.G.B. application).

The witness, who is the father of one accused and father-in-law of the other, had previously confessed to his son (acting as a police agent) and the police about the accused's involvement in a murder and the subsequent disposal of the body, but later recanted.

The court found that necessity was established by the recantation and that threshold reliability was met through a combination of procedural reliability (the witness was available for cross-examination and the statements were recorded) and substantive reliability (confirmatory physical evidence and lack of motive to lie at the time).

The statements were ruled admissible.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and accessory after the fact, the accused brought a motion seeking further disclosure relating to certified translations of Punjabi-language recordings and interviews relied upon by the Crown.

The defence identified material discrepancies between police, Crown-certified, and defence-certified translations of a key intercepted conversation and sought documentation relating to the commissioning, preparation, and certification of translations.

The court found that the requested materials had a sufficient nexus to the reliability of the translations relevant to a proposed s. 9 Canada Evidence Act application under R. v. K.G.B. The judge ordered limited disclosure of communications, requests, drafts, and information concerning the preparation and certification of specific transcripts prepared by a particular translator.

Broader disclosure requests were withdrawn without prejudice.

During a jury trial for second‑degree murder and accessory after the fact, the Crown sought a preliminary ruling regarding disputed Punjabi-to-English translations of intercepted communications.

The Crown requested that the court appoint a neutral third‑party translator to resolve discrepancies between the Crown and defence transcripts or, alternatively, determine that the Crown translation was accurate before addressing a defence disclosure application.

The court declined to order a court-appointed translator, emphasizing that calling its own witnesses should occur only rarely and with extreme caution.

Given material discrepancies between translations and incomplete argument on the defence disclosure application, the court directed that submissions continue on the defence request for further disclosure relating to the translations.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on delay in completing his bail hearing, alleging violations of ss. 7, 9, and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused argued that the justice of the peace and Crown prosecutor caused an unlawful adjournment exceeding the three‑day limit under s. 516 of the Criminal Code and demonstrated disregard for the accused’s liberty interests.

The court held that defence counsel consented to the adjournment and therefore no illegal adjournment occurred.

The court further found that neither the Crown prosecutor nor the justice of the peace acted improperly or breached the accused’s Charter rights.

Although the 32‑day duration of the bail hearing was unacceptable, it did not justify the extraordinary remedy of a stay of proceedings.