Lawrence T. Feldman

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and care or control over 80 after police found him sleeping in the driver's seat of his vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown alleged the defendant had care or control of the vehicle.

The defendant testified he entered the vehicle to sleep following an argument with his wife and had no intention to drive.

The court found the defendant had rebutted the presumption of care or control and dismissed the charges, finding the risk of danger was speculative rather than realistic.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in multiple controlled substances and possession of property obtained by crime following his arrest at a condominium apartment during a large-scale police operation targeting gang members.

The Crown alleged the accused possessed significant quantities of heroin, cocaine, marijuana, hashish, ecstasy, oxycodone, and cash.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the police entry and search, arguing violations of Charter rights.

The court found the initial police entry was justified by exigent circumstances and the search warrant was validly obtained.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's knowledge of and possession of drugs found inside a nightstand drawer and in a closet, acquitting on most counts while convicting on possession of marijuana found on top of the nightstand and related proceeds of crime.

The accused brought a motion to stay charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Marihuana under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging undue delay.

The accused was arrested and charged in May 2014 and scheduled for trial in April 2016, approximately 22 months later.

The Crown opposed the stay application.

The court found that while the Participation charge was weak and should have been laid sooner, the Crown had discretion in a complex multi-accused prosecution involving extensive disclosure and multiple judicial pre-trials.

The court concluded that the accused's security interests were not violated and that he had not suffered unacceptable prejudice from undue delay.

The application was dismissed and the trial proceeded.

The accused sought release on bail following charges including forcible entry, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of prohibited weapons, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and forcible confinement.

The Crown alleged the accused was the main perpetrator in a violent home invasion and assault that resulted in serious injuries to the victim.

The accused testified in his own defence, claiming limited involvement and self-defence.

The court found the Crown's case reasonably strong but granted bail with stringent conditions, including residence outside Toronto with a substantial surety and monitoring requirements.

The accused was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment and two counts of failure to comply with probation.

While on probation for prior criminal harassment of another woman, he repeatedly contacted the complainant via Facebook despite police caution and her non-response.

The accused exhibited signs of erotomania and a delusional disorder, believing the complainant reciprocated his affections despite clear evidence to the contrary.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months imprisonment with 3 years probation, including strict no-contact conditions and mandatory mental health treatment.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Over 80 following a traffic stop where he registered a fail on a roadside screening device (ASD).

The defence challenged the reliability of the ASD result, arguing that without evidence of calibration, the officer lacked an objectively reasonable belief that the device was in proper working order, thereby undermining the basis for arrest and the subsequent breath demand.

The court found that the officer's reliance on a self-test met the low threshold for establishing an objectively reasonable belief in the device's working order.

The Crown proved the essential elements of the Over 80 charge, resulting in a conviction.

The Operation Impaired charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of impairment.

The accused was charged with Operation Over 80 following a motor vehicle stop.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing that the samples were not taken as soon as practicable as required by the Criminal Code.

The court examined the timeline of events from the initial stop through the taking of breath samples, identifying both explained and unexplained delays.

Despite finding the case borderline, the court concluded that the breath tests were taken within a reasonably prompt time under the circumstances and admitted the evidence.

The accused was found guilty.

At a preliminary inquiry into a charge of second-degree murder, the court determined whether sufficient evidence existed to commit the accused for trial.

The accused was charged with causing the death of a five-month-old infant through head injury while babysitting.

The Crown argued that medical evidence of severe brain injury, combined with evidence of animus and post-offence conduct, supported committal on second-degree murder.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for manslaughter but argued the medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish the subjective intent required for murder.

The court found that a jury could reasonably infer from the medical evidence of severe repetitive mechanical assault, the ruling out of accident, evidence of animus, and post-offence conduct that the accused possessed the requisite subjective intent for second-degree murder.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit two accused for trial on charges of attempted murder, aggravated assault, careless use of firearm, weapons dangerous, and unauthorized possession of firearm arising from a shooting incident outside a nightclub in Scarborough.

The accused challenged the sufficiency of identification evidence.

The court found that while identification evidence was frail and contained material inconsistencies, it was sufficient to warrant committal for trial on the low threshold applicable at the preliminary inquiry stage.

The court distinguished between cases of weak identification, which may still warrant committal, and cases where identification is so contradictory as to not constitute identification at all.

The accused were charged with assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and intimidation following an incident in which the complainant was lured to the defendant's home and severely beaten.

The Crown alleged that the male defendant, motivated by jealousy over the complainant's intimate relationship with the female defendant, orchestrated the assault with an unknown second assailant.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and accepted his evidence that he was set upon by two individuals and beaten, suffering fractured ribs and significant facial injuries.

The male defendant was found guilty of all charges.

The female defendant's charges were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of her knowledge and intent to participate in the assault, though the judge found her at least wilfully blind to the possibility of violence.

The accused was found guilty of four counts each of sexual interference and sexual assault of four nieces committed over a period of 3-4 years during their early and pre-teen years.

The offences involved multiple occasions of unwanted sexual touching, including digital penetration.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years imprisonment, along with a SOIRA Order for 10 years, a weapons prohibition order for 10 years, and a DNA sample requirement.

The sentencing emphasized denunciation and deterrence principles, recognizing the breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victims, and the profound psychological harm caused.

The applicant, an Aboriginal woman from the Mississauga First Nation, entered guilty pleas to drinking and driving offences and sought a curative discharge as a remedy for alleged Charter violations.

She argued that Ontario's failure to proclaim section 255(5) of the Criminal Code—which permits curative discharges for impaired driving offences—violated her equality rights under section 15 of the Charter.

The court found that the provincial policy created differential treatment of Aboriginal offenders by denying them access to restorative sentencing options mandated by section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the non-proclamation constituted systemic discrimination against Indigenous persons and violated their equality rights, which were not saved by section 1 of the Charter.

The court granted a remedy permitting consideration of a curative discharge.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon without authorization, two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon, careless storage of a firearm, careless storage of ammunition, possession of a firearm obtained by an indictable offence, and possession of a firearm with its serial number defaced.

A .32 calibre silver revolver with three live rounds and a spent shell casing were discovered during a search warrant execution at the accused's apartment.

The accused challenged committal for trial, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge, a material element of possession.

The court found the evidence circumstantial and sparse, with equally plausible inferences available regarding knowledge by either the accused or a third party with regular access to the apartment.

The court discharged the accused, finding the Crown failed to meet the threshold for committal.

The defendant was convicted of Operation Over 80 following a collision with a motorcyclist at Highway 401 and Kennedy Road in Scarborough.

The victim suffered catastrophic injuries including brain damage, vision impairment, and ongoing physical and psychological trauma.

The court found the defendant's impaired driving contributed to the collision despite the Crown proceeding on a lesser charge that excluded causation.

The defendant was sentenced to 30 days imprisonment served intermittently on weekends, with 12 months probation and no enhanced driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of sexual interference and sexual assault involving four complainants, his nieces, during overnight visits at his residence between 2002 and 2010.

The complainants described repeated incidents of sexual touching occurring when they were children and disclosed the abuse years later to a school guidance counsellor, leading to a police investigation.

The defence alleged collusion and fabrication motivated by family disputes and allegations of elder abuse.

The court assessed credibility using the W.(D.) framework and accepted the complainants’ evidence as credible and consistent on material facts despite peripheral inconsistencies attributable to youth and the passage of time.

The accused’s denial and supporting defence evidence were rejected.

The Crown proved the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual interference and four counts of sexual assault against four sisters (his nieces) between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2010.

The complainants testified that the accused engaged in multiple sexual violations including digital penetration while they slept over at his apartment during their early and pre-teen years.

The accused denied all allegations and testified that his bedroom was locked and he had limited contact with the complainants.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, applying the appropriate standard for assessing child evidence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as contrived and self-serving.

The accused was found guilty on all eight counts.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Operation Over 80 following a motor vehicle collision at Highway 401 and Kennedy Road in Scarborough.

The Crown alleged the accused struck and seriously injured a civilian while his blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit.

The accused raised multiple Charter issues including claims regarding statutorily compelled statements, detention and timely access to counsel, language comprehension difficulties, and lost evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts after addressing the Charter applications and determining that the breath test evidence was admissible.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample into a roadside screening device and obstructing a peace officer by failing to provide identification.

The accused challenged the charges on Charter grounds, alleging violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the roadside demand was made within the "forthwith" requirement despite a six-minute delay, as the delay was necessitated by articulated safety concerns and the accused's obstructive behaviour.

The arrest, though technically charged under the wrong provision, was supported by reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found no Charter violations and convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused was found guilty of operation impaired following a motor vehicle collision.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including violations of ss. 9, 10(a), 10(b), and critically, s. 7 security rights.

The accused was left in a urine-soaked state for approximately 10 hours in custody without being offered a change of clothing, blanket, or early release.

Police officers made demeaning remarks about his condition.

The court determined that the accused's dignity and composure during the breathalyzer process were fundamentally compromised by the wilful indifference of persons in authority.

Applying the test from R. v. Babos, the court found that the egregious Charter violation reflected an endemic institutional attitude toward detainees that could not be adequately remedied by alternative sanctions, particularly given mandatory minimum sentencing provisions.

The court concluded that a stay of proceedings was warranted to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

The accused was charged with sexual assault for allegedly performing oral sex on the complainant without her consent while she was sleeping beside him in his residence on New Year's Eve.

The complainant testified she awoke to find the accused engaging in oral and digital sex with her and immediately left.

The accused claimed the complainant was awake and consented to the sexual contact.

The court found credibility issues on both sides, including inconsistencies in the complainant's post-incident communications and the accused's self-serving testimony.

Despite finding it probable the accused performed the acts without consent or was reckless, the court concluded there remained reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances, the level of awareness of the parties, and the question of consent, resulting in a dismissal of the charge.