Kevin Doyle

This decision addresses the constitutionality of routine strip searches of young persons in pre-trial custody, focusing on four Black adolescent female applicants charged in the high-profile homicide of Kenneth Lee.

The court found that routine strip searches, conducted without individualized grounds or prior authorization and involving complete nudity, violated sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead holding that the appropriate remedy was a reduction in sentence for any applicant found guilty, to reflect the Charter breach.

The ruling provides detailed analysis of the legal and regulatory framework, the psychological impact of strip searches, and the evolving standards for custodial searches in youth justice settings.

This decision addresses the admissibility of breathalyzer evidence in an impaired driving case where the accused, Lydia Havasova, challenged the constitutionality of police conduct under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found no Charter breach in the initial police interaction or the roadside demand for a breath sample, emphasizing that the accused was not detained prior to the demand.

The decision clarifies the application of the law regarding detention and the use of statements made prior to detention for establishing grounds for breath demands.

The court also considered the impact of officer training on Charter compliance but ultimately admitted the breath test results, finding the Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant, Orlando Zaragoza, sought a stay of criminal proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging that police violated his rights under sections 7, 9, and 10(a) during an encounter in a private parking garage.

The court found that the police arbitrarily detained the applicant based, in part, on racial profiling and failed to promptly inform him of the reasons for his detention.

Furthermore, the court determined that an officer's use of lethal force in firing four shots at the applicant's fleeing vehicle was neither subjectively nor objectively reasonable, violating his section 7 rights.

Concluding that the egregious state misconduct would undermine the integrity of the justice system if the trial proceeded, the court granted the application and stayed all charges.

Alan Todd was charged with communicating and making an agreement to commit sexual assault and sexual interference with a person he believed to be under 16, contrary to s.172.2(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the agreement was genuine, not merely words or role-playing.

The evidence included electronic communications with an undercover officer posing as a mother of a 12-year-old girl, truthful personal details provided by Todd, and his presence at the arranged meeting location.

Todd claimed the conversations were fantasy role-playing and that he never believed the child existed.

The court found his testimony internally inconsistent and illogical, concluding that Todd genuinely intended to enter into the agreement.

He was found guilty on both counts.

Kevin Barreau was convicted after trial of human trafficking, receiving a material benefit from human trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

The sentencing judgment details the circumstances of the offences, the severe impact on the victim (A.D.), and the offender's personal history, including the influence of systemic anti-Black racism as presented in an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA).

The court considered aggravating factors such as the victim's youth and the lasting impact of the offences, alongside mitigating factors including the offender's youth at the time of the offences, lack of prior criminal record, expressed remorse, strong rehabilitation prospects, and the contextualizing role of systemic racism.

The Crown sought a global sentence of seven years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day with restitution.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months imprisonment, applying a two-month credit for a Charter breach (denial of access to counsel).

Ancillary orders included restitution to the victim, forfeiture of seized items, a non-communication order, and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The accused, Nathan Johnson, faced charges including child luring, communicating for sexual services, and distributing sexually explicit material.

The court heard a Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to lost evidence (chatlogs from a dating site).

The chatlogs, crucial for establishing the alleged victim's age as under 18, were deleted from the officer's device and the platform due to police inaction and delay in preservation efforts.

The court found the police officer's failure to preserve the evidence constituted unacceptable negligence, breaching the accused's Section 7 and 11(d) Charter rights to disclosure and a fair trial.

Consequently, the proceedings were stayed.

The offenders, two youthful first-time offenders, were convicted of firearm offences after acquiring a handgun while collecting drug debts.

One offender also pleaded guilty to dangerous driving after a brief police chase.

The Crown sought penitentiary sentences of 2.5 to 3 years.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 96(2) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter and struck it down.

Applying the restraint principle and noting the offenders' strong rehabilitative prospects and community support, the court imposed conditional sentences of two years less a day for both offenders.

The defendant, William Leahy, was charged with operating a motor vehicle while his ability was impaired by a drug.

He was found passed out in the driver's seat of his vehicle with the engine running.

The court addressed whether the defendant rebutted the statutory presumption of care or control under s. 320.35 of the Criminal Code, and if so, whether the Crown proved de facto care or control by demonstrating a realistic risk of danger.

The court found that the defendant rebutted the presumption, distinguishing prior case law (Hatfield and Miller) by emphasizing that the impaired occupancy of the driver's seat did not begin with an intention to set the vehicle in motion.

The court also found no realistic risk that the defendant would change his mind and drive or unintentionally set the vehicle in motion.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty.

The moving party husband brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of Audet J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it had no merit and was an unjustifiable waste of resources.

Costs were awarded to the responding party wife on a substantial indemnity basis.

During a case management teleconference for a motion for leave to appeal, the responding party objected to the inclusion of a previously disallowed affidavit and email communications in the moving party's materials.

The court ruled that the disallowed affidavit could remain in the record solely to assess the motions judge's decision to strike it, but not for the truth of its contents.

However, the court struck out the email communications because they were not before the motions judge and raised a challenge not previously raised.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interim decision regarding temporary custody and access in a high-conflict family law case.

During a case management teleconference, the court set a timetable for the written motion for leave to appeal.

The court denied the applicant's request for oral argument, noting that motions for leave to appeal are typically heard in writing and this case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the standard practice.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to find the respondent mother in contempt of court for failing to comply with multiple court orders requiring her to facilitate the return of their two children from Ethiopia to Ottawa.

The mother had left the children with their maternal grandmother in Ethiopia and returned to Canada alone.

The grandmother subsequently refused to release the children to a court-ordered escort.

The court found that while the mother failed to comply with several provisions of the orders, her disobedience could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be deliberate and wilful in all instances, and the court exercised its discretion to decline making contempt findings at this time.

However, the court issued a new temporary order requiring the mother to travel to Ethiopia at her own expense to retrieve the children and bring them to Ottawa by February 28, 2020, failing which she may be held in contempt.

The accused was charged with mischief endangering life after lighting a fire at a gas station, causing injury to himself and endangering others.

The Crown conceded that the accused was incapable of appreciating that his actions were wrong due to cannabis-induced psychosis, but argued that cannabis-induced psychosis does not constitute a mental disorder within the meaning of s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused suffered from an underlying propensity to psychosis triggered by prolonged cannabis use, distinguishing his case from simple drug intoxication.

Applying the internal cause and continuing danger factors from R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, the court found the accused not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The defendant was sentenced for two counts of breaching a section 161 prohibition order under the Criminal Code.

The defendant had previously been convicted of sexual interference against his stepson and was subject to a prohibition order restricting contact with persons under 16 years of age.

The defendant breached this order on two occasions by being alone with children without an approved adult present.

The Crown sought consecutive jail sentences totaling 12 months, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 9 to 12 months.

The court imposed consecutive conditional sentences of 6 months each for a total of 12 months, followed by 3 years of probation, finding that a conditional sentence was appropriate given the lower end seriousness of the breaches, the defendant's rehabilitation efforts, and the low risk of reoffending when conditions were imposed.

The accused, Zachariah Piva, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, LB, alleged non-consensual sexual activity, while the accused maintained it was consensual.

A third witness, KA, provided inconsistent testimony regarding consent.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of all witnesses, applying the R. v. W. (D.) test.

The court found that the Crown did not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the complainant's subjective lack of consent, due to inconsistencies in her testimony and the corroborating evidence from the third witness and the accused.

The accused was acquitted.

In a child protection summary judgment motion, the applicant society sought a protection finding and a final custody order in favour of the mother based largely on the child’s out-of-court statements alleging abuse while in the father’s care.

The court held that, although necessity was established, threshold reliability was not, because the evidentiary record relied heavily on layered hearsay without better available evidence such as direct affidavits, notes, an expert report, or the police interview video.

Excluding the hearsay, the remaining evidence did not permit the court to reject the father’s theory of improper influence over the child.

The court found a genuine issue requiring trial and dismissed the motion.

The appellant father appealed a summary judgment order granting sole custody of the children to the mother with supervised access for the father under the Child and Family Services Act.

The father argued the motion judge erred by refusing an adjournment, proceeding by summary judgment, and applying child protection principles instead of family law principles.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors of law or fact.

The court noted the father had been given an opportunity to present his case and that the evidence supported the finding that the children were in need of protection due to the father's mental health and parental conflict.

The accused was tried on a historic sexual assault allegation involving repeated touching of the complainant at a family cottage when she was a child.

The court rejected defence arguments based on delay in disclosure, asserted inconsistencies, alleged physical implausibility, and an alleged motive to fabricate connected to a family property dispute.

Applying established principles governing delayed disclosure and childhood memory, the court accepted the complainant's evidence and found corroborative surrounding circumstances.

The accused's police statement and trial testimony were found untruthful on his prior knowledge of the allegations.

The Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant father was entirely successful on a motion for summary judgment regarding child custody, access, and support.

He sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent mother argued against a costs award due to financial hardship and the nature of the family law dispute.

The court found the mother's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, as she brought an unrealistic custody claim to discourage the father's support application.

Despite her limited income, the court awarded the father costs of $2,200 on a partial indemnity basis.

A custody and access dispute concerning a child with developmental delays was tried following a period during which the father retained the child after the mother’s hospitalization arising from a mental health episode.

The court considered extensive evidence from educators, child protection workers, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer regarding school attendance issues, alleged parental alienation, and the ability of each parent to meet the child’s special needs.

Numerous abuse allegations made by the father against the mother were investigated and found unsubstantiated.

Applying the best interests test under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found the father had repeatedly failed to meet the child’s educational, medical, and developmental needs and had attempted to alienate the child from the mother.

The mother was found capable of providing a more stable and child‑focused environment.