Laurence A. Pattillo

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at an apartment where police seized a firearm, cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and cash.

The accused sought exclusion of the evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that the Information to Obtain relied on confidential informants and contained misleading statements and insufficient disclosure.

The Crown applied under step six of the Garofoli procedure to permit the court to consider the unredacted affidavit.

The court held that the redacted ITO and judicial summary provided sufficient disclosure to allow a facial challenge under the Debot criteria and therefore granted the Crown’s cross‑application.

After excising two exaggerated statements from the affidavit, the court concluded that the remaining information established reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The search authorization was upheld and the Charter application dismissed.

The plaintiffs sought damages arising from the termination of a memorandum of understanding and a subsequent agreement relating to the proposed development of an 80 MW wind energy project on the defendant's industrial lands.

The court held that both documents were largely agreements to agree and therefore unenforceable with respect to the broader development and lease arrangements.

However, the documents imposed limited binding obligations, including a requirement to provide 60 days’ notice before termination of the memorandum and an obligation to allow access for wind measurement under the second agreement.

The defendant breached those obligations by terminating immediately and preventing continued wind testing.

Claims for fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, partnership, and loss of chance damages were rejected.

In a mid-trial voir dire in a robbery prosecution, the court determined whether an accused's statement to police was admissible.

Applying the voluntariness framework for statements to persons in authority, the court held there was credible evidence the impugned statement was made and that ultimate reliability disputes were for the trier of fact at trial.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, emphasizing the absence of threats, coercion, or promises and the proximity of a consultation with duty counsel.

The defence argument that non-recording rendered the statement inherently suspect was rejected on the facts and governing appellate authority.

The statement was admitted into evidence.

The moving party sought production of documents and information held by a court‑appointed receiver in connection with an investigation related to alleged securities fraud proceedings before the Ontario Securities Commission.

The court considered whether the principles governing third‑party production established in R. v. O'Connor and R. v. McNeil applied to records held by a receiver acting as an officer of the court.

It held that although receivers generally are not required to disclose investigative materials beyond their reports, that protection cannot override an accused’s constitutional right to make full answer and defence.

Applying the O'Connor framework, the court required the moving party to demonstrate that the requested records were “likely relevant.” Only limited categories of documents met that threshold, including certain materials from lawyers, the accountant, and recovered emails, while most requests were rejected as speculative fishing expeditions.

Licensed pharmacists operating pharmacies within retail stores sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the retailer from selling or transferring pharmacy records to third‑party pharmacy operators following the closure of the stores.

The moving parties argued the records belonged to them under the license agreements and that privacy legislation governing personal health information prevented the transfer.

The court held that the agreements clearly provided that customer records belonged to the retailer, though it acknowledged a low‑threshold serious issue regarding the interaction of contractual terms with health‑information legislation.

The court found no irreparable harm because any business losses could be compensated in damages and patient privacy would not be breached under the statutory regime permitting transfer of records to a successor health information custodian.

The balance of convenience favoured allowing the transfers to ensure continuity of patient care.

The motions for injunction were dismissed.

The accused was charged with robbery after presenting a demand note to a bank teller and taking approximately $400.

He admitted committing the robbery but argued he acted under duress, claiming an unknown armed individual in a vehicle forced him to carry out the offence and threatened to shoot his friend if he refused.

The court held that s. 17 of the Criminal Code excludes the defence of duress for robbery and that, absent a constitutional challenge, the statutory exclusion remained operative.

In the alternative, the court assessed the common law defence of duress and rejected it, finding the accused’s testimony not credible and concluding that the alleged threats were fabricated and unsupported by the evidence.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the robbery voluntarily.