Laura Giordano

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 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.