Lawrence Gridin

A York Regional Police officer, Jordan Nesbitt, was charged with breach of trust, fabricating evidence, and attempting to obstruct justice following a vehicle search.

The Crown alleged he planted cocaine and falsified reports to justify an unlawful search.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, citing issues with witness credibility, the integrity of the scene, and plausible alternative explanations for the presence of substances.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, a police officer charged with breach of trust and fabricating evidence, brought a motion to compel the Crown to call a fellow officer as a witness.

The Crown refused to call the officer, citing concerns about his reliability due to inconsistencies in his statements.

The court declined to order the Crown to call the witness, affirming the Crown's discretion.

However, given the witness's materiality and allegations that his statement was improperly influenced by an investigating detective, the court exercised its exceptional discretion to call the officer as the court's own witness, permitting both parties to cross-examine him with certain restrictions.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with assault causing bodily harm after mistakenly entering the wrong apartment during a domestic assault call and physically detaining the occupant.

The Crown conceded the detention was lawful but argued the manner and force used were unreasonable.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable and accepted the officer's account that the force used was minimal and tailored to the volatile circumstances.

The court held the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the force was reasonably unnecessary under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code, and the charge was dismissed.

The applicant church sought $75,000 in costs after being unsuccessful on an urgent application for an interim injunction to stay COVID-19 restrictions on in-person religious services.

The church argued costs were warranted because the case raised a novel issue of significant public importance.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the injunction application focused on the narrow interests of the church rather than broad public interest, and turned on settled legal principles rather than novel issues.

No costs were awarded to either party for the injunction application.

Sean Osborne, a police officer, pleaded guilty to assault committed while on duty.

The assault involved stepping on a restrained young person's head/neck area and twice kicking him in the chest after arrest.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the Defence sought a discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting that police officers are held to a higher standard due to their position of trust.

Despite significant mitigating factors, including PTSD and extensive community contributions, the court found that a discharge would be contrary to public interest.

A conviction was deemed necessary to convey the seriousness of the offence and breach of public trust.

The court imposed a suspended sentence and 12 months probation with statutory terms.

The applicant church sought an interim injunction to exempt it from O. Reg. 82/20, which restricted religious gatherings to a maximum of ten people in regions designated as Stage 1 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The church argued the regulation infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the church established a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm.

However, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the public interest in protecting health and preventing the spread of COVID-19 outweighed the temporary restriction on the church's religious freedom.

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The Peel Regional Police Service applied for a stay of a disclosure order pending an application for leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The disclosure order required the Crown to provide the investigative files of a police officer, who was charged with unrelated offences, to the accused as first-party disclosure.

The court applied the RJR-MacDonald test and found that there was a serious question to be determined, the applicant would suffer irreparable harm if the appeal became moot, and the balance of convenience favoured granting the stay.

The stay was granted, subject to terms regarding its expiration.

The Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) appealed a Divisional Court decision that quashed its second finding (unsubstantiated) regarding a police misconduct complaint by the Stanleys and ordered a third investigation.

The Court of Appeal upheld the quashing of the OIPRD's second decision, but on the ground that the OIPRD was functus officio and lacked statutory or common law authority to reconsider its initial substantiated finding.

The Court set aside the Divisional Court's order for a third investigation, restoring the OIPRD's original decision to refer the matter for a disciplinary hearing, while noting that the OIPRD could now apply its newly amended rules for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and sought leave to appeal his sentence of 14 months' imprisonment and two years' probation.

The conviction arose from a second trial following a mistrial on a charge of aggravated assault of Tim Runge.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in leaving assault causing bodily harm as an included offence to the jury, contending that the uncontested expert evidence of a serious and permanent brain injury established the elements of aggravated assault as a matter of law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial judge properly left the included offence with the jury as there was an air of reality to it, and that defence counsel had requested the instruction.

The court also dismissed the sentence appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the trial judge's findings regarding aggravating factors.

The applicant, a police officer, was convicted of attempted murder after shooting a person on a streetcar.

He brought a constitutional challenge against the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for attempted murder with a restricted firearm under s. 239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the high moral blameworthiness of the applicant's conduct, nor was it overbroad in its application to police officers.

This case concerns the sentencing of Police Constable James Forcillo for attempted murder.

The court first addressed a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum punishment of five years for attempted murder under s.239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, finding it did not infringe ss.12 or 7 of the Charter.

The sentencing judge then determined the appropriate sentence, rejecting the defence's submission that Forcillo's moral blameworthiness was low due to a misperception.

The court found that Forcillo acted contrary to his training by shooting a potential threat and failing to use de-escalation, constituting a high level of moral blameworthiness and an egregious breach of trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as positive personal characteristics and the impact of protective custody, the aggravating factors, including the abuse of authority and the serious actual harm caused, substantially outweighed them.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence.

A sentence of six years in the penitentiary was imposed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault arising from a domestic dispute where he was found to have pushed a garbage bag into his wife's face.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant of more serious assault allegations from the same incident due to credibility concerns but convicted him on the garbage bag incident.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to adequately explain why he could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on one part of the incident but not the other, and expressed concern over the trial judge's application of the standard of proof.

The conviction was set aside and, given the circumstances and time passed, no new trial was ordered.

The Crown applied for certiorari seeking to quash a preliminary inquiry judge’s decision discharging a police officer from charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter arising from the fatal shooting of a suspect during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown conceded the murder charge but argued the officer should have been committed to trial for manslaughter based on careless use of a firearm, advancing two theories: that the officer released the firearm onto a sling while grappling with the deceased, or that he had his finger on the trigger and unintentionally fired.

The Superior Court held the preliminary inquiry judge applied the correct committal test and did not commit jurisdictional error.

The evidence showed the officer’s conduct complied with training and police policy, and the proposed inferences of careless firearm use were unsupported and speculative.

Certiorari was therefore unavailable.

A preliminary inquiry into charges of second degree murder and careless use of a firearm arising from the death of Eric Osawe during a dynamic police entry.

The Crown alleged that the accused officer deliberately fired his MP5 submachine gun during a struggle with the deceased.

The court found no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer intentional discharge, and further found that the officer's conduct was consistent with professional standards.

The accused was discharged on all counts.

A police constable was charged with assault causing bodily harm after forcibly taking an intoxicated man to the ground during an arrest for public intoxication.

The Crown alleged excessive use of force.

The court found the arrest was lawful under the Liquor Licence Act and that the force used was necessary and not excessive.

The officer believed the arrestee was about to strike his partner and pulled him away, resulting in an unintended fall.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused, a police constable charged with assault causing bodily harm, brought a motion for an order requiring the Crown to disclose occurrence reports relating to police investigations of the complainant.

The accused sought evidence of the complainant's history of intoxication, violence, and resistance to arrest to support a defence of justified use of force during arrest.

The court found that the occurrence reports constituted first-party disclosure obligations under the Crown's duty to disclose, applying the principles from R. v. McNeil.

The court ordered the Crown to examine sealed packages from the police services and review all occurrence reports for potentially relevant information relating to the complainant's past conduct.