Aaron Harnett

The accused was stopped at a RIDE spot check and an officer made a breath demand under section 320.27(1)(b) of the Criminal Code based on reasonable suspicion.

The officer's grounds for suspicion were insufficient to meet the objective standard.

The Crown sought to rely on section 320.27(2) (mandatory alcohol screening) at trial, which does not require reasonable suspicion.

The court found that the two subsections are not mutually exclusive and that an officer need not subjectively rely on section 320.27(2) for a demand to be valid under that provision.

The court upheld the lawfulness of the breath demand and dismissed the Charter application.

The court sentenced Richard Goodland to 3.5 years in the penitentiary for possession of child pornography, following a conviction based on undisputed facts.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the accused’s background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court emphasizes the harm caused by child pornography, the need for denunciation and deterrence, and Parliament’s direction for increased sentences for offences against children.

Ancillary orders were also imposed, including forfeiture, internet restrictions, SOIRA, DNA order, and a prohibition on contact with persons under 16.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence for the defendant, Jason Perrault, following his guilty pleas to multiple offences including assault with a weapon, which involved intimate partner violence.

The court found that Perrault met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation due to a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour and a likelihood of causing severe psychological damage.

However, based on expert psychiatric evidence and the defendant's expressed commitment to change, the court determined that a determinate sentence of 10 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order with strict conditions, would adequately protect the public, rather than an indeterminate sentence.

This ruling addresses a Section 276 Criminal Code application in a sexual assault case, where the accused, Habtamu Kebede, sought to cross-examine the complainant on prior sexual activity and communications.

The court dismissed the application for certain utterances (race-based sexual preferences and sexual inactivity) due to lack of relevance and high prejudicial effect.

However, it granted the admission of video evidence showing flirtatious behaviour at a bar and evidence of a goodbye kiss at the complainant's Airbnb, finding these relevant to the complainant's credibility and the surrounding circumstances of the alleged offence, with their probative value outweighing any prejudice.

The defendant, Mathew Cook, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Jordan, calculating the total delay, subtracting defence delay, and accounting for exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic and unforeseen need for additional trial time.

After deductions, the net delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence had not demonstrated meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings.

Consequently, the application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his 11-year-old son.

The allegations arose from a single incident in the fall of 2017.

The trial judge applied the W.(D.) framework to assess the credibility of both the complainant and the accused.

The judge found both the complainant and the accused to be credible and compelling witnesses.

As the judge was unable to resolve the conflicting testimony and was left with a reasonable doubt, the accused was acquitted of both charges.

Sentencing of four offenders convicted of multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, money laundering, and committing offences for a criminal organization.

The offenders orchestrated a sophisticated, multi-million dollar fraud scheme targeting the Canada Small Business Financing Program and several major banks using sham construction companies.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from 14 months to 8 years, along with significant restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, laundering proceeds of crime, and committing offences for a criminal organization in relation to a scheme to fraudulently obtain Canada Small Business Financing Program loans from various banks.

The Crown alleged that the defendants used sham corporations, forged financial documents, and inflated or fabricated invoices for leasehold improvements and equipment to deceive the banks into advancing loan funds, which were then laundered among the defendants.

The court found that Marshall Kazman and Gad Levy orchestrated the scheme and were guilty of fraud, money laundering, and the criminal organization offence.

Ali Vaez Tehrani and Madjid Vaez Tehrani were found guilty of fraud on specific counts but acquitted of the criminal organization charge.

Armand Levy, Ekaterina Chapkina, and Kamyar Ghatan were acquitted of all charges.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault after having sexual intercourse with a complainant who was extremely intoxicated and incapable of consent.

The accused failed to take any steps to ascertain consent and the complainant was unaware of the sexual contact until the accused informed her two days later.

The Crown sought a sentence of 2 years less 1 day, while the defence sought 6 months less 1 day, citing potential immigration consequences.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by 2 years of probation, finding that while the offence was opportunistic rather than planned, it required a sentence in the upper reformatory range to address specific and general deterrence and denunciation.

The applicant, charged with fraud and committing an offence for a criminal organization, applied for a Rowbotham order after being denied legal aid due to financial ineligibility.

The court found that the applicant lacked the financial means to retain counsel for a four-month trial and that the complexity of the case, combined with the applicant's lack of legal knowledge and language barriers, necessitated legal representation for a fair trial.

The application was granted, and the charges were stayed until the Ministry of the Attorney General provides funding for counsel.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident at a women's basketball tournament in Toronto.

The complainant alleged that after heavy drinking and blacking out, the accused had sexual intercourse with her without consent.

The accused admitted to intercourse but claimed it was consensual, asserting the complainant initiated and insisted on sexual activity.

The central issues were consent and the complainant's capacity to consent.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding the circumstances of the sexual activity not credible, particularly his account of aggressive sexual advances by the complainant on a hotel balcony and in the bedroom.

The court determined that the complainant was extremely intoxicated, had blacked out, and lacked capacity to consent.

The accused knew of her extreme intoxication but took no steps to ascertain consent.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The applicant brought a motion under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging that her right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed.

She was charged with impaired operation and refusing to provide intoxilyzer breath samples arising from events on August 3, 2014.

The information was sworn on August 12, 2014, and trial was scheduled for November 5-6, 2015.

The court found that the total delay was at minimum 11.5 months, comprising 2 months of Crown delay due to incomplete vetting of disclosure and 9 months and 14 days of institutional delay due to lack of court resources in Halton Region.

The court also found that the trial time estimate of 2 days was unrealistic and that a proper estimate of 4 consecutive days would have pushed the trial date further out.

The applicant demonstrated real prejudice due to pre-existing mental health issues exacerbated by the delay.

The court concluded that the applicant's section 11(b) rights had been infringed and granted a stay of proceedings.