Laura Giordano

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, firearms offences, and possession of proceeds of crime after police found a hidden compartment in a pedestal in their garage containing drugs and loaded firearms.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the value of the items, the accused's occupancy of the residence, and magnets found in the home that could open the compartment.

The court found the accused not guilty on all counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence did not rule out the reasonable possibility that the items belonged to someone else, given the accused's credible testimony, the lack of forensic evidence, and the fact that others had access to the garage.

The accused was charged with murder and brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on late disclosure and abuse of process.

The Crown failed to disclose critical DNA evidence identifying the victim's brother's DNA on a mask recovered at the scene, which had been in police possession since January 7, 2025, but was not disclosed until September 9, 2025, on the eve of trial.

Additionally, the Crown failed to timely disclose cell tower evidence and corresponding witness statements necessary to establish the accused's identity as the suspect.

The court found serious violations of the accused's section 7 Charter rights and determined that the Crown's pattern of negligence, apathy, and late preparation constituted an abuse of process that undermined the integrity of the justice system.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the only appropriate remedy.

This decision concerns the sentencing of three defendants involved in a home invasion that resulted in a death and injury.

Trevor Kotzma and Michael Rodgers pleaded guilty to manslaughter, while Alexander Nicholas Mahon-Fernandes pleaded guilty to robbery.

The court considered the severe aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the home invasion, the violence inflicted, and the profound impact on victims.

Mitigating factors, such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, and difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, were also weighed.

For Mahon-Fernandes, his lack of prior criminal record and significant rehabilitative efforts while on bail were particularly noted.

The court accepted joint sentencing submissions for Kotzma and Rodgers, and imposed a penitentiary sentence for Mahon-Fernandes, slightly less than the Crown's request, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence despite his first-offender status.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Easton Aiton-Poore, who pleaded guilty to six offences including possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited handgun.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the commercial nature of the drug operation, the significant quantities of drugs and money seized, and the dangerous combination of drugs and firearms.

Mitigating factors included the offender's young age (23), lack of prior criminal record, guilty pleas demonstrating remorse and acceptance of responsibility, supportive family, and productive engagement in pre-sentence custody (PSC) programming.

A key issue was a disagreement between Crown and Defence counsel regarding enhanced credit for PSC served during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite an initial "joint submission" for a global 12-year sentence.

The court clarified that such a disagreement negates a true joint submission.

Ultimately, the court imposed a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, reducing it by 3 months to account for the harsh conditions of COVID-19 related PSC, emphasizing that such conditions are collateral consequences impacting the sentence's fitness.

Criminal trial involving charges of assault and uttering threats against two defendants arising from allegations of child abuse occurring between November 1 and December 23, 2016.

The prosecution relied primarily on testimony from two teenage witnesses, one of whom was a close friend of the family.

The court found credibility issues with the witnesses' evidence, particularly regarding exaggeration and inconsistencies.

The defendants were charged with failing to provide necessaries of life, assault, and uttering threats.

The fail to provide necessaries charges were dismissed on application for directed verdict.

The court found the defendants guilty of two assault charges but acquitted them of the remaining charges.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with possession of a prohibited handgun and related firearm offences.

The accused conceded to committal on all charges except those relating to possession of a handgun, arguing that the seized Jennings J-22 was not operational as defined in the Criminal Code.

The Crown's expert testified that the gun had a broken or missing breechface that prevented it from firing, but that the part could be repaired or replaced with a readily available slide assembly.

The court found that the evidence established the gun could be made operational through straightforward installation of readily available parts in a reasonable timeframe, and committed the accused to trial on all charges.

The accused were charged with multiple offences including conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and heroin, and criminal organization offences related to a motorcycle club.

The Crown relied heavily on police surveillance and intercepted communications.

The court admitted the visual and voice identification evidence, as well as a membership list under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found two of the accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and heroin, but acquitted the third.

The court acquitted all accused of the criminal organization charges, finding the Crown failed to prove that one of the main purposes of the motorcycle club was the facilitation of serious offences.

One accused was also found guilty of weapons and proceeds of crime offences.

The accused brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained through omnibus warrants and search warrants, alleging insufficient material before the issuing judges and breaches of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court addressed issues of standing, the excision of misleading expert opinion and irrelevant information from the Information To Obtain (ITO), and the sufficiency of confidential informant (CI) information for both predicate warrants (tracking and dialed number recorder warrants) and the main wiretap authorization.

The court found that all accused had standing, excised certain inflammatory and misleading portions of the ITO, but ultimately concluded that the predicate warrants met the lower "reasonable suspicion" standard and the wiretap authorization met the "best interests of justice" standard, supported by credible and corroborated CI information.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought a pretrial motion to admit the opinion evidence of two police officers as expert witnesses in a trial involving drug trafficking and criminal organization charges.

The first officer was proposed as an expert in drug trafficking and slang, which the court admitted fully, finding the evidence reliable and necessary.

The second officer was proposed as an expert on outlaw motorcycle gangs, specifically the Outlaws and the Black Pistons.

The court found the second officer qualified to testify on the general history and culture of outlaw motorcycle gangs, but excluded his opinion on the specific culture of the Black Pistons and the ultimate issue of whether they constituted a criminal organization, due to his limited specific experience with that group.

The accused brought a pretrial motion for Crown disclosure of questionnaires, debriefing notes, and handlers' notes regarding 22 confidential informants used to support wiretap authorizations.

The Crown conceded the questionnaires and debriefing notes but opposed disclosing the handlers' notes, arguing they were not relied upon by the affiant.

The court held that in the context of a Garofoli application, handlers' notes not relied upon by the affiant do not form part of the investigative file requiring disclosure.

However, the court ordered disclosure of the handlers' notes for two informants because the affiant himself was their handler.

The Crown brought an application for a ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused at Primary and Secondary Inspection at Pearson International Airport, and during an RCMP interview following his arrest for importing marijuana.

The court found that the accused was not detained during routine questioning at Secondary Inspection prior to the discovery of the drugs.

The court also found that the accused's subsequent statements to the RCMP were the product of an operating mind and made voluntarily, without fear, oppression, threat, or inducement.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The accused were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery based primarily on intercepted wiretap communications over a three‑day period.

The defence argued the conversations amounted only to discussion or negotiation about a robbery and did not constitute an agreement.

The court reviewed the elements of conspiracy under s. 465 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing that the actus reus requires a true agreement or meeting of the minds to commit an indictable offence, though not all operational details must be settled.

Interpreting the wiretaps in context, the court found the accused had reached an agreement to rob a man seen counting money, conditional on obtaining a weapon and locating the target.

The subsequent failure to obtain the weapon merely frustrated the plan and did not negate the existence of the agreement.

The accused applicants brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude wiretap evidence obtained pursuant to a Part VI intercept authorization, alleging a violation of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The investigation stemmed from an armed robbery at a pawn shop where the owner was shot.

The applicants argued the information to obtain (ITO) relied on unreliable confidential informant information and that police failed to exhaust alternative investigative methods.

The court reviewed the redacted ITO and found that, even excluding the contested informant information, the remaining evidence—including DNA matches and association evidence—provided reasonable grounds for the authorization.

A supplementary application regarding police obtaining contact information from Ontario Works without a warrant was also dismissed.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused was tried on a charge of trafficking in a firearm based on a single intercepted telephone call that the Crown alleged contained an offer to transfer a firearm.

The court assumed, without deciding, that the accused was the caller, that the subject matter was a firearm, and that he knew he was not authorized to transfer it.

Applying an interpretation of “offer” that requires more than a statement of intention and contemplates acceptance or rejection by the offeree, the court held the cryptic conversation was at least equally consistent with reporting on negotiations or an intended acquisition.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an offer to transfer a firearm had been made.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 25.3 grams of crack cocaine hidden in his clothing following arrest.

At sentencing, the court rejected the offender’s claim that the drugs were for personal use, finding him to be a commercial trafficker based on the quantity of drugs, the organization of cash seized, and expert evidence regarding trafficking practices.

The court considered whether a conditional sentence was appropriate given that the offence pre‑dated legislative amendments restricting such sentences.

Applying the principles of deterrence and denunciation, the court found a conditional sentence inconsistent with the purposes of sentencing.

A custodial sentence was imposed together with probation and ancillary orders including forfeiture of proceeds of crime.

The accused brought a motion seeking leave to sit at counsel table rather than in the prisoner’s dock during a jury trial on serious criminal charges.

The court considered whether seating location affected the accused’s fair trial rights and the need for courtroom security.

Evidence from courthouse security indicated the case carried heightened security risks due to its high-profile and emotionally charged nature.

The court held that seating the accused in the dock would better ensure security and would not prejudice the accused’s fair trial rights, particularly with appropriate jury instructions.

The motion was dismissed and the accused was directed to remain seated in the prisoner’s dock for the duration of the trial.