Charles Lamy

This decision addresses the charge of dangerous operation of a vehicle under s 320.13(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the credibility of the police officer's radar speed measurement and the accused's testimony.

The officer's evidence of the van traveling at 139 km/hr in a 70 km/hr zone, combined with aggressive driving and distraction, was found credible.

The accused's contradictory and unreliable testimony was rejected.

The court found the accused's driving to be a marked departure from the standard of care, constituting dangerous operation.

The defendant, Milan Tosic, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

The trial included a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8 and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically concerning police entry onto private property and the timing of detention and rights to counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that police acted within the implied license to investigate and that detention began when the defendant voluntarily exited his residence.

Based on the admissible evidence, including civilian testimony of erratic driving, police observations of impairment, and breath test results, the court found the defendant guilty of impaired operation, staying the over 80 charge under the Kienapple principle.

Damaine Sitladeen was found guilty by a jury of possession of a prohibited firearm, occupying a vehicle with a prohibited firearm, and possession of Fentanyl and Cocaine.

He was also found guilty of possession of a firearm while prohibited due to prior s. 109 orders.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record involving prior firearm offences and the dangerous combination of drugs and guns.

Mitigating factors included family support.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for firearm offences.

A global sentence of 7 years and 3.5 months was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a remaining sentence of 5 years and 2 months.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime s. 109 prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized property.

This criminal trial concerned charges of impaired operation and "80+" following a single-vehicle collision.

The central issue was the identification of the driver.

The Crown presented direct and circumstantial evidence, including testimony from a neutral witness who observed the male defendant exiting the driver's seat immediately after the crash.

The defendant's testimony was deemed unreliable due to intoxication, and his wife's testimony was found not credible as it contradicted other evidence.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver.

The applicant, Damaine Sitladeen, faced firearm and drug charges and brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 9 to exclude evidence.

He alleged unlawful arrest due to racial bias, an overbroad search incident to arrest, and an unconstitutional strip search.

The court found no Charter violations, concluding that the arrest was based on reasonable grounds (missing license plate), the vehicle search was incidental to arrest and reasonable (including for identification and after drug discovery), and the strip search was justified and conducted reasonably.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Devonie Williams-Senior, was charged with break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, primarily the accused's fingerprints found on a "trinket box" in the ransacked dwelling.

The defence argued that the fingerprints did not conclusively prove the accused's presence at the time of the offence, suggesting an innocent explanation such as handling the item prior to its purchase.

The court applied the two-stage approach for fingerprint evidence, finding the defence's alternative inference speculative and irrational.

The court concluded that the totality of the circumstantial evidence proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown brought an application to admit a compilation of surveillance video recordings.

The compilation combined footage from the scene of the shooting and a subsequent location, and included enhancements such as spotlights and magnifiers.

The defence objected, arguing the compilation and enhancements could unduly influence the jury.

The court held that the compilation and spotlight enhancements were admissible, as they were substantially accurate and assisted the trier of fact without causing prejudice.

The use of a magnifier on the accused's clothing was excluded pending further evidence on whether it altered the image.

The accused, charged with armed robbery and related offences, brought a second application to review his detention order, alleging material changes in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and potential unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the detention centre had effectively managed the virus and the accused failed to show an increased risk of contracting COVID-19.

Furthermore, the court held that the potential delay was largely attributable to the defence and did not constitute a material change that would have affected the initial bail decision.

The application was dismissed, and the accused remained detained on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

In a first degree murder jury trial, the accused brought a Charter application to exclude taxi dispatch records and related audio recordings voluntarily provided by a taxi company to police without judicial authorization.

The court held that the accused had no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the basic service-order information, including phone numbers, pickup locations, first names used, and associated audio of brief taxi-ordering calls, such that no search or seizure occurred for s. 8 purposes.

In the alternative, the court found that the October 2017 police requests were justified by exigent circumstances arising from the immediate aftermath of a homicide and concern for public safety, the taxi driver, and preservation of evidence, while the later May 2020 request would have been unreasonable if s. 8 were engaged.

Applying the Grant factors in the further alternative, the court held that any breach was not serious, the privacy impact was minimal, and society’s interest in adjudication on the merits strongly favoured admission.

The exclusion application was dismissed.

During a jury trial for first degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce recognition evidence from five witnesses to identify the accused in surveillance videos.

The witnesses, including a police officer and four security guards, had prior interactions with the accused in the community.

The court applied the test for non-expert opinion evidence of identity, finding that each witness had a sufficient prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him.

The court rejected arguments that the evidence was overly prejudicial or tainted by the witnesses' knowledge of the investigation.

The Crown's application to adduce the recognition evidence was granted.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to admit a Resident Information Form for an apartment unit as a business record under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The accused objected, arguing the form was not created in the ordinary course of business, contained double hearsay, and lacked threshold reliability.

The court dismissed the objections, finding the form was routinely collected and relied upon by property management, satisfying the statutory requirements for admissibility.

The form was admitted into evidence.