Kofi Barnes

The applicants sought an order requiring the respondent mortgagee to pay outstanding property taxes and a declaration that a Notice of Sale was invalid.

The applicants had defaulted on a first mortgage, which the respondent then purchased to protect its second-priority cross-collateral mortgage.

The cross-collateral mortgage stipulated that upon default and buyout, an 8% interest rate and a 10% administrative fee would apply to the entire principal.

The applicants argued this violated section 8 of the Interest Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the 8% rate applied to the entire principal, not just arrears, and therefore did not constitute a prohibited penalty under section 8.

The Notice of Sale was declared valid and enforceable.

A.R. was convicted by a jury of four counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his intimate partner (R.V.), and one count of assault (choking) against his young son (K.R.).

The Crown sought a global 22-month sentence, two years probation, and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order.

The defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence and opposed probation and SOIRA.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months imprisonment, two years probation, and a DNA order, but declined to impose a SOIRA order, finding a low risk of re-offending despite the serious nature of the domestic violence.

This was a trial to change a final order concerning decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant mother alleged the respondent father's substance misuse and violent behavior created an unsafe environment, leading to the children's alienation.

Investigations by the OCL, police, and DCFS found no basis for the safety allegations.

The court found both parents contributed to the children's alienation from the father due to high hostility and inappropriate involvement of the children in the dispute.

The court ordered a phased approach to the father's parenting time, starting with supervised visits and progressing to unsupervised, with mandatory counselling for both parents and children, and random urine screens for the father.

The mother was granted sole decision-making responsibility with consultation.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing and retroactive child support, and secure life insurance.

The mother's request for section 7 expenses was dismissed due to lack of prior consent, and spousal support was terminated.

This case involved a dispute between former real estate investment partners regarding the nature and scope of their oral agreement.

The plaintiffs, Anish Gupta and Gurpal Sani, sought a declaration that a second property, Torbram Road, was part of their partnership with the defendants, Kamaljit Chauhan and Gurbir Chauhan, and that the defendants had misappropriated partnership funds.

The court found that an oral partnership agreement existed for both properties (Para Place and Torbram Road), and that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties by selling Torbram Road and using the proceeds to purchase their personal residence (Burlwood Road) without accounting to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs were declared beneficial owners of Burlwood Road via a resulting trust and awarded damages.

A claim for punitive damages was dismissed due to the absence of an independent actionable wrong.

The applicant, facing firearms charges, brought a Charter application alleging violations of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights due to racial profiling during a police search and detention.

The court found that the safety search and subsequent search of his person, belongings, and vehicle were unlawful and tainted by unconscious racial bias, constituting breaches of ss. 8 and 9.

While the initial 10(b) rights during the Cannabis Control Act investigation were suspended due to brief roadside detention, the post-arrest delay in providing access to counsel was an unreasonable breach of s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant factors, the court concluded that admitting the firearm would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, particularly given the serious nature of the racial profiling and the systemic issues it represents.

The firearm was excluded.

Her Majesty the Queen appealed the acquittal of Nicholas Bennett on a charge of driving with over 80 milligrams of alcohol.

The trial judge had excluded breath test results, finding a breach of the respondent's s. 10(b) Charter rights due to the police's failure to provide a Prosper warning.

The respondent had initially invoked his right to counsel, but police conduct led him to believe further attempts to contact a lawyer would be futile.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's finding of a Charter breach and the exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2), concluding that the seriousness of the police conduct, which effectively rendered the right to counsel meaningless, outweighed other factors, notwithstanding the minimally intrusive nature of breath samples.

The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was affirmed.

The appellant, Salim Mohamad, appealed his sentence of 16 months custody for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge failed to adequately consider his post-conviction diagnosis of schizophrenia and its impact on sentencing, and erred in finding premeditation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly considered the appellant's mental illness and its treatment, and that the finding of premeditation was supported by the evidence.

The court affirmed that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount sentencing principles, and a conditional sentence was insufficient given the serious nature of the offence.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, Moses Odemi, on a charge of refusing to comply with a breath demand under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had excluded evidence (ASD test result and refusal) under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to an unlawful ASD demand (s. 8 Charter breach) and a s. 10(b) Charter breach.

The appeal court upheld the exclusion of evidence, finding the police officer's embellishment of grounds for the ASD demand to be a serious Charter breach, which outweighed other factors in the Grant analysis.

The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal stood.

The accused was charged with importation of heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after picking up a package containing 2.3 kilograms of heroin from a UPS store.

The package had been intercepted and subject to a controlled delivery by the RCMP.

The accused claimed he was picking up the package for a friend and believed it contained auto parts.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreasonable and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the heroin in the package and in his apartment.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was tried for two counts of first-degree murder in the stabbing deaths of his wife and mother-in-law.

The Crown argued for constructive first-degree murder on the basis that the killings occurred during a forcible confinement.

The accused conceded he killed the victims but argued he lacked the requisite intent due to intoxication and denied forcible confinement.

The court rejected the intoxication defence, finding the accused had the intent to murder based on his actions, the extent of the injuries, and his post-offence conduct.

The court also found that the accused forcibly confined the victims by dragging them from an upstairs bedroom to the kitchen where the fatal wounds were inflicted.

The accused was found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder.

The offender, an African Canadian man, was convicted of aggravated assault after sucker-punching and stomping a defenceless victim outside a nightclub.

The court considered the impacts of systemic anti-Black racism and the lack of a formal Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA) due to financial constraints.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the severity of the unprovoked attack, the court sentenced the offender to two years in a penitentiary, less three months credit for time spent on strict bail conditions.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

He argued that the second information, which added an impaired driving charge, was a nullity because the swearing officer relied solely on a presumption of good faith from the Crown's request rather than objective facts.

The Superior Court found that while the officer inadvertently swore a false oath, binding jurisprudence dictates the information is not a nullity.

Although the practice breached section 7 of the Charter and warranted a stay of the impaired driving charge, the remedy was moot as the appellant had been acquitted of that charge at trial.

The appeal against the over 80 conviction was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and firearms offences following the shooting death of his girlfriend and his own attempted suicide, applied for bail.

The applicant had a history of breaching bail conditions, including no-contact orders with the deceased.

Due to his severe medical condition resulting from the suicide attempt, primary and secondary ground concerns were somewhat mitigated, though the proposed sureties were deemed unsuitable.

The court denied bail primarily on the tertiary grounds, finding that the Crown's case was overwhelming, the offences were grave, and the applicant's history of non-compliance with court orders meant his release would shake public confidence in the administration of justice.

Heeralal Ramdeo was convicted after a judge-alone trial for kidnapping, use of an imitation firearm to commit assault, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to public peace.

The Crown alleged Ramdeo masterminded the kidnapping of Dharwant Gill to locate Paul, who had stolen drugs from Ramdeo.

Gill's testimony, though inconsistent and from an unsavoury witness (treated as Vetrovec), was corroborated by other evidence.

The court found a conspiracy proven beyond a reasonable doubt and Ramdeo's probable membership.

Ramdeo's defence was rejected as unreasonable.

He was found guilty on most counts but acquitted of uttering threats due to reasonable doubt regarding the specific content of threats.

The accused, Samuel Oduro, brought a pre-trial application to exclude cocaine evidence found in his car, alleging a violation of his Section 8 Charter rights.

He argued the search warrant was unlawfully obtained due to baseless generalizations, incomplete disclosure, failure to meet telewarrant preconditions, and insufficient information regarding the confidential informant's credibility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the affiant made minor errors, they were in good faith and did not mislead the issuing justice.

The court concluded that the information to obtain the warrant, as amplified and redacted, provided reasonable grounds for its issuance, rendering the search lawful and no Charter breach.

J.G. was convicted of sex trade-related offenses (influencing/directing, advertising, obtaining material benefit from a minor's sex trade) and child pornography offenses (possession and distribution).

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years and six months.

Key legal considerations included the unconstitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences for the sex trade offenses, the inadmissibility of the accused's unrequested disciplinary records from custody, and the application of systemic racism as a mitigating factor in sentencing Black offenders.

The court found mandatory minimums unconstitutional, excluded the disciplinary records, and took judicial notice of systemic racism's deleterious impacts as a mitigating factor.

Credit for pre-trial custody and lockdown days due to COVID-19 was also applied.

In a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the Crown alleged that the accused exploited a 17-year-old complainant in connection with sex trade activity, online advertisements, and related offences.

The trial judge rejected the complainant's evidence that she had entered the sex trade unwillingly, finding instead that she participated voluntarily, which defeated the human trafficking and procuring theories.

The court nevertheless found that one accused actively managed the communications, advertisements, pricing, and operational aspects of the sex trade activity, knew the complainant was under 18, and thereby influenced her movements for the purpose of facilitating the provision of sexual services for consideration.

That accused was convicted of influencing a minor contrary to s. 286.3(2), advertising sexual services, receiving a material benefit, and possessing and distributing child pornography; the co-accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, charged with offences related to a home invasion, brought an application alleging that the arresting officer used excessive force by smashing his head into the ground five times, in breach of his rights under ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings or a reduction in sentence.

The court found that the applicant embellished his injuries and the degree of force used, and that the medical evidence did not support his claims.

The court concluded that the officer's conduct was objectively reasonable in the exigent circumstances of the arrest.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple drug and Criminal Code offences.

The case proceeded as a blended Charter proceeding and trial.

The court found that the police used the Highway Traffic Act as a ruse to conduct a criminal investigation, thereby breaching the accused's section 9 Charter right against arbitrary detention.

Although the court found the police officers acted in good faith and the evidence was reliable, the seriousness and deliberate nature of the Charter breach, and its significant impact on the accused's rights, led to the exclusion of all evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, with no evidence, the accused was found not guilty of all charges.

Trayon Johnson, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, sought an order under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to challenge prospective jurors for cause.

He proposed augmenting the traditional *Parks* questions with multiple-choice options to address subconscious racial bias against men of African ancestry.

The court acknowledged the existence of racial stereotypes and unconscious bias, finding that appropriately-constructed multiple-choice questions could be more effective than standard "yes/no" questions in identifying such biases.

The proposed multiple-choice questions were approved to ensure an impartial jury.