Lawrence T. Feldman

The accused, Rene Hamouth, faced charges of possessing firearms without a license.

Police executed a search warrant at his residence, finding multiple firearms and ammunition.

The defence argued for the exclusion of evidence under Charter s. 24(2) due to alleged s. 10(b) infringements, including delayed access to counsel and breaches of the "hold-off" duty.

The court found multiple s. 10(b) breaches by the police, citing lack of diligence in facilitating counsel access and improper questioning.

However, applying the Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the violations and their impact on the accused's Charter rights did not outweigh society's interest in a trial on the merits, especially given the lawful seizure of reliable evidence prior to the breaches.

Consequently, the firearms and ammunition were admitted.

The court then found the accused guilty on all counts, concluding that the prosecution proved constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with Blow Over 80.

During a Charter voir dire, the defence argued that the police violated the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel of choice by failing to clarify his repeated requests to speak to his brother, who had contact information for criminal lawyers, and by channeling him to duty counsel.

The court found a substantive and serious s. 10(b) violation, as the police did not take the accused's requests seriously and failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to consult counsel of choice.

Applying the Grant analysis under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the breath readings, leading to the dismissal of the charge.

The accused, R.A.-M., was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault of a 15-year-old victim.

The sexual assault charge was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The court considered sentencing principles for child sexual abuse, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Friesen.

Despite the persistence of the acts, the court viewed them as being at the lower end of intrusiveness.

Considering the accused's good character, employment, and family support, an intermittent sentence was deemed appropriate.

The accused was sentenced to 90 days intermittent, 2 years probation, SOIRA registration for 15 years, a s. 161.1(b) order, and a DNA sample order.

The defendant, Andrew Morris, pleaded not guilty to assault, specifically spitting on and hitting the complainant.

The defence disputed identity, while the Crown relied on the complainant's in-dock identification, TTC video surveillance, and recognition evidence from a Special Constable who had prior interactions with the defendant.

Despite a height discrepancy in the complainant's identification, the court found the Special Constable's recognition evidence, based on substantial prior contact and good quality video, to be sufficiently strong and reliable to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court distinguished Chartier by noting the presence of buttressing circumstantial evidence.

Andrew Morris was found guilty.

The accused, Amari Buchanan, faced charges including criminal harassment, trafficking in persons, and threatening bodily harm.

The Crown sought to admit two videotaped cautioned statements of the recanting complainant, J.J., for their truth under the principled exception to the hearsay rule (Khelawon application).

J.J. testified as a hostile witness, denying her prior allegations and claiming police pressure, drug influence, and memory loss due to a concussion.

The court found J.J.'s testimony lacked credibility, her memory loss contrived, and her hostility transparently aimed at exonerating the accused.

The court concluded that the police statements met the threshold reliability test, finding that J.J. appreciated the seriousness of her statements and the consequences of lying, and that the videotapes allowed for assessment of her demeanour.

The statements were admitted for their truth.

The accused was charged with Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, Disobey Court Order, and Criminal Harassment.

The accused, an estranged partner of the complainant, allegedly sought to punish the complainant for limiting his access to their children through threats and intimidation in Family Court proceedings, distribution of intimate photographs at the complainant's workplace, and coercion to change testimony regarding custody.

The court found the accused guilty of Utter Death Threat, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, and Criminal Harassment.

The charge of Disobey Court Order was dismissed.

The court found the accused's aggressive and controlling behaviour during Family Court proceedings corroborated the complainant's testimony regarding threats and intimidation.

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 and Stunt Driving under the Highway Traffic Act after being stopped for speeding at 157 km/h in a 100 km/h zone.

The officer detected signs of impairment and administered a roadside screening device test, which registered a fail.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples at the police detachment.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the roadside screening device result on the basis that the device's calibration status was uncertain, and argued that the breath tests were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found that the officer had an objectively reasonable basis for believing the device was in proper working order based on the recent accuracy check and the device's operational indicators, and that the breath tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault and one count of threatening death arising from incidents in January 2017 involving his then-wife.

The Crown alleged that during an argument over the complainant's infidelity, the defendant grabbed the complainant by the neck on one occasion and by the arm on another, causing a bruise, and threatened to kill her male friend from Trinidad.

The defendant denied the allegations, claiming he only touched the complainant's shoulder lightly and snatched her phone.

The court found the complainant generally credible and her daughter to be the most reliable witness.

The court convicted on one count of assault causing the bruise but dismissed the remaining counts due to lack of corroboration and uncertainty regarding the other allegations.

The accused were charged with three counts of break, enter and theft and two counts of possession of property obtained by crime.

They brought a pre-trial application challenging the validity of a search warrant on the basis that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds, violating their section 8 Charter rights.

Additionally, one accused alleged a violation of his section 10(b) rights to counsel.

The court found that while the Information to Obtain contained misleading information and conclusory statements, the remaining evidence was sufficient to support issuance of the warrant.

The court also found a serious breach of section 10(b) rights but determined that the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the breach was not temporally or factually connected to the seizure of the evidence.

The defendant was charged with Operation Impaired and Blow Over 80 following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant applied to exclude breath test results based on alleged Charter breaches, including violations of section 8 (search and seizure), section 10(b) (right to counsel), and section 9 (arbitrary detention) rights.

The court found that the officer breached the defendant's section 10(b) rights by failing to inform him immediately of his right to counsel and by facilitating access to a paralegal rather than a lawyer, without explaining the distinction.

The court excluded the breath test results under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also found a reasonable doubt regarding care or control of the vehicle and impairment without the breath readings.

Both charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, Disobey Court Order, and Criminal Harassment.

The charges arose from allegations that the accused pressured his estranged spouse over custody and access to their two young children.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct from 2012, including the dissemination of nude photographs of the complainant at her workplace.

The court admitted evidence of the 2012 schoolyard incident as prior discreditable conduct, finding it strikingly similar in detail and highly probative of motive and identity, while excluding other earlier misconduct as insufficiently distinctive.

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 after being found unconscious in her motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

Following arrest and booking, she was subjected to a strip search (level 3 search) after a small amount of marijuana was discovered in her purse.

The accused challenged the strip search as a violation of her Charter rights under sections 7 and 8.

The court found that the officer-in-charge lacked reasonable and probable grounds to order the strip search, as he failed to conduct an individualized assessment of the detainee's circumstances as required by law.

The court excluded the breath test evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with Operation over 80 and Disobey Stop Sign contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The defence argued that the officer breached the accused's s. 10(b) Charter rights by failing to provide an opportunity to consult counsel between the formation of reasonable suspicion and the arrival of the roadside screening device (ASD).

The defence further contended this led to an unlawful seizure of breath, breaching s. 8 rights, and sought exclusion of the breath readings under s. 24(2).

The court found no breach of s. 10(b) rights, as the officer had a reasonable expectation the ASD would arrive within minutes and was prepared to facilitate counsel access within 10 minutes.

Even if a breach had occurred, the court would not exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) following a Grant analysis, as the seriousness of any breach was minimal and the public interest in adjudicating the serious charge on its merits outweighed exclusion.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his conviction for sexual assault and two counts of threatening death.

The accused, aged 48 with over 50 prior convictions and a history as a long-term offender, committed a sexual assault on an elderly shelter resident and made death threats to police officers.

A forensic psychiatrist assessed the accused as presenting high to very high risk for violent and sexual recidivism with intractable mental disorders including anti-social personality disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and substance abuse disorder.

The accused consented to the dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence.

The court accepted the consent and imposed detention in a penitentiary for an indefinite period.

The accused was charged with two counts of Break & Enter with Intent, three counts of Mischief under $5000, three counts of Theft under $5000, and two counts of Fail to Comply with Probation.

The determinative issue was the identity of the perpetrator.

The Crown sought to introduce recognition evidence from two police officers who had prior contact with the accused and identified him from surveillance video.

The court held a voir dire to determine the admissibility of this recognition evidence.

The court found that both officers were sufficiently familiar with the accused through multiple prior encounters and arrests, placing them in a better position than the court to identify the accused in the video.

The recognition evidence was admitted as admissible at trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to operation impaired and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm without authorization or licence.

On March 8, 2016, police responded to reports of an impaired driver on Highway 401 in Toronto.

The accused was observed striking barriers and weaving between lanes.

Upon arrest, officers discovered a loaded handgun with the safety in the "off" position in the accused's jacket pocket.

Testing revealed the presence of morphine, codeine, and alprazolam in the accused's system.

The court imposed a $1,500 fine and 18-month driving prohibition for the impaired operation charge.

For the firearm offence, the court sentenced the accused to 3 years imprisonment, reduced to 19 months after accounting for pre-trial custody and mitigating factors including stringent bail conditions and harsh detention conditions.

The accused was also placed on probation for 2 years.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Operation over 80 following an incident on September 28, 2016.

A civilian witness reported erratic driving to police.

The accused was stopped at his residence and arrested.

Breath tests conducted approximately 90 minutes after the incident showed readings of 135 mgs and 131 mgs.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, determined that breath tests were taken as soon as practicable, and found the accused guilty on both counts based on the evidence of impaired driving and the breath test results exceeding the legal limit.

The accused was convicted of possession of a loaded restricted firearm, breach of a prohibition order, breach of probation, unauthorized possession of a firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized.

Surveillance officers observed the accused transferring a bag containing a loaded firearm with one bullet in the chamber and additional ammunition between vehicles.

The court imposed a global sentence of 40 months less 23 months pre-trial custody, resulting in 17 months to be served, followed by 30 months probation.

The court emphasized the gravity of firearm offences and the need for exemplary sentencing while considering the accused's rehabilitative prospects.

The accused was charged with assault and forcible confinement arising from an incident on August 20, 2016, during which he allegedly punched the complainant in the eye and confined her in his home against her will.

The Crown called the complainant as its primary witness, while the accused testified in his own defence and called two character witnesses.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness and accepted her evidence that the accused intentionally struck her in the eye, resulting in a conviction for assault.

However, the court was left in reasonable doubt regarding the forcible confinement allegation and dismissed that charge.

The decision turned on credibility assessments, with the court finding the accused's testimony to be evasive and self-serving, while the complainant's account was straightforward and corroborated by the severity of her injuries.

The accused was charged with threatening bodily harm to a transit bus driver, assaulting police officers while resisting arrest, attempting to take a weapon from a peace officer, and failing to comply with probation by not making full restitution.

The Crown proved that the accused threatened the bus driver with violence after becoming frustrated about being late for work.

The court found the accused guilty of threatening bodily harm, assault while resisting arrest, and failing to comply with probation.

However, the court acquitted on the charge of attempting to take the officer's weapon, finding reasonable doubt as to whether the accused acted with the necessary intent to disarm the officer during the struggle.