Kene Canton

The accused pled guilty to fraud over $5,000, uttering a forged document, and committing theft under false pretenses in connection with an elaborate Ponzi scheme operated through Mac Glamour Inc. between 2015 and 2019.

The accused targeted members of her Filipino community, promising high investment returns on a fictitious lipstick manufacturing business.

A Gardiner hearing was held over 30 months to determine the quantum of loss and whether a fine in lieu of forfeiture should be ordered.

The court accepted a joint submission of 4 years imprisonment and ordered a fine in lieu of $610,856.00 based on losses that were readily ascertainable from documentation provided by certain victims.

The court rejected the Crown's submission that losses totaling nearly $5 million were proven, finding that many victim claims lacked sufficient documentation to meet the "readily ascertainable" threshold.

The applicant, Gaddiel Ledinek, sought a bail review after being denied release on secondary and tertiary grounds for serious firearms offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to a strengthened supervision plan involving three new sureties, 24/7 house arrest, electronic monitoring, and a home security system.

Despite the seriousness of the charges, the applicant's criminal record, and the strong Crown case, the court found the proposed plan sufficiently robust to address public safety concerns and maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review was granted, and Ledinek was released on strict conditions.

The applicant, Traequon Mahoney, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, seeking release from custody pending trial on two sets of serious charges (armed robbery and firearm offences).

The court found a material change in circumstances, entitling the applicant to a de novo hearing.

While acknowledging the seriousness of the charges and the applicant's breach of prior bail conditions, the court noted the applicant's lack of criminal record and a new, potentially stronger, release plan.

The court found the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention to be evenly balanced.

Ultimately, the application was adjourned, with the judge requiring further sworn affidavits from the proposed sureties and the applicant to provide a detailed, firm, and enforceable 24/7 supervision schedule and specific bail conditions, including weapon searches, social media restrictions, and no-contact provisions with prior associates.

The accused, a 23-year-old first-time offender with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a loaded firearm contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

Police executed a search warrant on his residence and discovered commercial quantities of cocaine, marijuana, and Alprazolam in a safe.

A loaded 45mm automatic firearm with a defaced serial number was found in a vehicle in which the accused was a passenger.

The firearm was being used to facilitate drug trafficking.

The accused received strong community support from family and his former employer.

The sentencing judge imposed a custodial sentence of two years less presentence custody, followed by one year of probation, with various conditions including a lifetime prohibition on possessing prohibited or restricted firearms and a ten-year prohibition on possessing other firearms.

Nancy Gandhi brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of her right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial end was 35 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court deducted 33 weeks (approximately 8 months) of delay attributable to the defence, including periods of explicit waiver, counsel unavailability, and change of counsel.

This reduced the net delay to just over 27 months, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

Applying the Jordan framework and its transitional approach, the court found no s. 11(b) violation, as the defence did not demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings, and the delay was not markedly longer than reasonably required under the prior Morin framework.

The application was dismissed, and the case was ordered to proceed to trial.

The accused was found guilty of unlawfully possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and breaching a weapons prohibition order.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the accused's criminal record, and his positive prospects for rehabilitation.

After applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody and significant credit for over four years of restrictive bail conditions, the court sentenced the accused to a total of 2.5 years in a penitentiary.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash a telewarrant and exclude firearm evidence obtained during a police search of his apartment.

The Information to Obtain relied heavily on information from an alleged confidential informant, and the Crown provided a heavily redacted version of the ITO claiming informer privilege.

The court addressed procedural issues at step six of the Garofoli framework concerning whether the excised material could be considered to support the warrant.

The judge held that the Crown must provide sealed written explanations justifying each proposed redaction and must file sealed evidentiary materials establishing the existence of the claimed confidential informant privilege.

These materials would be reviewed by the court alone to determine whether the privilege and redactions were justified.

The accused pleaded guilty to two masked robberies of retail stores in which imitation firearms were brandished and cash and property were stolen.

Although no physical injuries occurred, victims experienced emotional and financial harm.

The Crown sought a three‑year custodial sentence, while the defence requested time served.

The court considered the seriousness of robbery offences and the importance of deterrence but also noted the accused’s youth, guilty plea, remorse, family support, and rehabilitative prospects.

Given that the accused had already spent approximately two and one‑half years in pre‑trial custody, the court concluded that a sentence of time served appropriately addressed the principles of sentencing.

The accused, charged with armed robbery, challenged the admissibility of his statements to police, alleging violations of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel and arguing the statements were involuntary.

The accused made an utterance before speaking to duty counsel and later provided a written statement off-camera after expressing discomfort with the video recording.

The Superior Court of Justice found no s. 10(b) breach, as the police provided a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel and the utterance was spontaneous.

The court also held the statements were voluntary, finding no oppressive conduct or improper inducements, and concluded the written procedure was a sufficient substitute for a video recording.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood contrary to the Criminal Code.

The accused applied to exclude breath sample evidence, arguing the police breached his section 8 Charter rights by failing to make a statutory demand for breath samples and by failing to obtain samples as soon as practicable.

The court found that the arresting officer did not make the required statutory demand and that a 21-minute delay in obtaining samples was unreasonable, as the accused had clearly and unequivocally waived his right to counsel.

The Crown could not rely on the statutory presumption in section 258 of the Criminal Code without proving these preconditions.

The charge was dismissed.