Larry Lebovits

The accused, Stephen Lewis, charged with sexual assault, sought to cross-examine the complainant regarding a ten-year-old statement about an unrelated alleged assault by her former common-law spouse.

The Crown opposed this, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial.

The court dismissed the defence's application, finding the proposed cross-examination lacked probative value and carried significant prejudicial effect, potentially distracting the jury with collateral issues.

The defendant was charged with 31 counts of participating in the making of false or misleading statements in Records of Employment (ROEs) and Employment Insurance (EI) applications under the Employment Insurance Act.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant knowingly provided false ROEs to individuals so they could obtain EI benefits, knowing they had not actually worked for the businesses named in the ROEs, often in exchange for payment.

The defendant testified that he merely prepared the ROEs based on instructions and information provided by his employer, Jaspal Singh, without knowledge that the contents were false, and that he did not sign the ROEs.

After a lengthy trial involving multiple witnesses and documentary evidence, the court found the defendant guilty on 10 counts and acquitted him on 10 counts, with 11 counts withdrawn by the Crown during trial.

The offenders were convicted of fraud over $5,000 in relation to a large-scale mortgage fraud scheme involving properties owned by the elderly father of one of the offenders.

The total loss to the title insurer was over $3.3 million.

The Crown sought three-year prison sentences and a restitution order against the son.

The court found that both offenders were suitable candidates for conditional sentences, imposing terms of two years less a day with house arrest and curfew conditions.

The court declined to order restitution against the son due to his destitution and subservient role, but imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture against both offenders based on the specific fraudulent funds they had possessed or controlled, giving them 20 years to pay.

The defendant Linda Lawlor sought a mistrial in her judge-alone fraud trial, arguing that the trial's scope improperly expanded beyond the single property she was committed on, leading to the introduction of prejudicial evidence and depriving her of an informed defence.

The court found a mutual error between Crown and defence regarding the scope but determined the evidence related to other properties was admissible for narrative and context, and the verdict was not tainted by impermissible reasoning.

The court distinguished the case from precedents involving adverse credibility findings and rejected a mistrial, offering a trial re-opening as an alternative remedy, which the applicant declined.

The application for a mistrial was dismissed.

Zhi Xin Lin pleaded guilty to production and possession for trafficking of ketamine.

The court considered aggravating factors including the large-scale commercial operation, the harmful nature of ketamine, and the residential location of the illegal lab.

Mitigating factors included his first offender status, guilty plea, cooperation with police, remorse, and impending deportation.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 10-year sentence, applying credit for pre-sentence custody and minimal credit for time under house arrest due to lack of information on its impact.

A net sentence of 9 years and 4 months was imposed.

The accused, Fred Curreri and Linda Lawlor, were charged with fraud over $5,000 against the elder Fred Curreri, Fred Curreri's father.

The fraud involved the fraudulent transfer and mortgaging of eight properties owned by the elder Fred Curreri.

The court found Fred Curreri guilty of fraud over $5,000 for his direct involvement in the fraudulent schemes, including transferring and mortgaging his father's properties and dispersing mortgage funds without consent, and alternatively, found him wilfully blind.

Linda Lawlor was found guilty of fraud over $5,000 for fraudulently transferring one specific property (1246 St. Clair) without authorization, but not for another property (28 Ruden) due to insufficient proof of her direct involvement in the transfer or subjective appreciation of its wrongfulness.

The accused brought a pretrial Charter motion seeking exclusion of drugs seized after police stopped his vehicle during an investigation for another suspect who had fled from police.

The defence alleged breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The court held that the vehicle stop constituted a lawful investigative detention supported by a nexus between the vehicle occupants and the suspect being pursued.

The subsequent arrest for driving while suspended and the search incident to arrest were lawful, and the seizure of drugs in the vehicle was justified under the plain view doctrine.

No Charter breach was established and the evidence was not excluded.

The accused was charged with break and enter, possession of stolen property, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eye-witness identification from a photo line-up and the doctrine of recent possession.

Two independent witnesses identified the accused: the homeowner who saw him leaving her property, and a construction worker who saw him dumping the stolen safe in a ravine.

The court found the photo line-ups were fair and the identifications reliable.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused was charged with break and enter of a residential dwelling, theft, possession of stolen property (a vehicle and a safe), and breach of recognizance.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification evidence from two independent witnesses who identified the accused in photo line-ups, combined with the doctrine of recent possession.

The court found the identification evidence reliable and the photo line-up procedures fair, complying with Sophonow Inquiry recommendations.

The accused was convicted on counts 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Count 5 was dismissed at the Crown's request.