David King

The applicants sought broad disclosure and privileged prosecutorial communications to support an abuse of process claim after new charges were laid following a prior stay of related charges arising from the same investigation.

The court held that the tax evasion allegations were demonstrably independent of the prior stay because the investigation had been ongoing well before the original takedown and continued throughout.

However, the timing and surrounding circumstances of the later money laundering and possession of property obtained by crime charges created a sufficient threshold basis to review prosecutorial discretion and order targeted disclosure.

Applying the prosecutorial-discretion abuse standard and the innocence-at-stake framework, the court concluded solicitor-client privilege could be pierced as a last resort to test whether those charges were laid to circumvent the earlier stay.

Michael Simonelli’s application was dismissed, while Raffaele Simonelli’s application was allowed in part.

The offender, a 50-year-old college professor and first offender, pleaded guilty to importing prohibited firearm parts (selector switches for a Glock) and possession of a prohibited firearm (a Derringer pistol).

The Crown sought a reformatory sentence of real jail, while the defence sought a 12-month conditional sentence.

The court considered the offender's exceptional background, genuine remorse, and low risk of reoffending, balanced against the extreme danger of fully automatic firearms.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served under house arrest, followed by 18 months of probation, 200 hours of community service, a $7,500 victim surcharge, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

Following convictions for lottery fraud, the Crown sought restitution, forfeiture, and fines in lieu of forfeiture against the accused.

The court ordered restitution of $12.5 million jointly and severally against the two primary offenders, declining to add interest.

The court also ordered forfeiture of approximately $7.5 million in seized funds, after returning specific amounts to innocent third parties.

Finally, the court imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture of $2.3 million each on the two primary offenders, with a six-year term of imprisonment in default of payment.

The accused were charged with multiple offences relating to the theft and fraudulent claiming of a $12.5 million winning Super 7 lottery ticket.

The Crown alleged that a convenience store clerk stole the winning free play ticket from a customer and subsequently had his daughter claim the prize.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, including lottery terminal data, cellphone records, and banking records, the court found the father guilty of theft, fraud, and possession of stolen property.

The daughter was found guilty of fraud and possession of stolen property.

The son was found guilty of stealing other lottery tickets but acquitted of the charges relating to the $12.5 million ticket.

All accused were acquitted of money laundering.

The accused was convicted of sexual offences and awaited sentencing and a dangerous offender application.

His retained counsel was suspended by the Law Society and failed to communicate with the accused or assist in transferring the file.

Given the serious consequences facing the in-custody accused, the court appointed amicus curiae to assist the court and protect the accused's rights, and adjourned the matter.

The applicant, a police officer charged with obstructing justice and fabricating evidence, sought a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of solicitor-client privilege.

During the investigation, her seized cell phone revealed text messages with a lawyer retained by the police association.

The court found the investigators' review and subsequent disclosure of these messages to co-accused was inadvertent and minimal.

Applying the tests from Regan and O'Connor, the court concluded there was no prejudice to the applicant's right to a fair trial and dismissed the application for a stay.

The applicant, a police officer charged with fabricating evidence and obstructing justice, was severed from her co-accused.

Prior to her own trial, the Crown subpoenaed her to testify at the trial of her co-accused.

The applicant brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that compelling her to testify breached her right to remain silent and constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the predominant purpose of calling her was not to obtain incriminating evidence for her own trial, and that any prejudice was cured by the statutory protections against derivative use of compelled testimony under section 13 of the Charter and section 5 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The applicants laid private informations against six police officers for assault and perjury arising from a 2006 incident involving the execution of a Feeney warrant.

After several pre-enquete hearings, the Crown intervened and stayed the charges, citing no reasonable prospect of conviction and no public interest.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel the return of the informations and a new pre-enquete hearing.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown had the statutory power to stay the proceedings under s. 579 of the Criminal Code and that there was no evidence of flagrant impropriety by the Crown to justify judicial interference.

The accused, a police officer, was committed to stand trial on charges of obstructing justice and fabricating evidence, but discharged on two other counts of fabricating evidence following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown subsequently added two counts of forgery to the indictment based on the same evidence, pursuant to section 574(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought an application to quash the two new counts.

The court dismissed the application regarding one count, finding sufficient evidence of a false notebook entry, but granted the application to quash the second count, concluding that the evidence regarding the condition of a Provincial Offence Notice was too speculative to support a forgery charge.

The moving party, charged with historical sexual offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 34.5 months, exceeding the presumptive ceiling.

However, the court found that an 8.5-month delay caused by the complainant's unexpected pregnancy and resulting stress constituted a 'discrete event' and an exceptional circumstance under the Jordan framework.

Deducting this delay brought the remaining time below the presumptive ceiling.

The court concluded the moving party failed to show the remaining delay was markedly in excess of what was reasonably required.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicants, charged with break and enter, were discharged at a preliminary inquiry, terminating their bail.

The Crown successfully applied for certiorari, reviving the charges.

To address the outstanding issue of bail, the Crown sought and obtained arrest warrants for the applicants.

The applicants brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging the Crown's conduct in seeking the warrants was an abuse of process and breached their rights under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the applications, finding the Crown's conduct did not meet the high threshold for abuse of process and the arrests were lawful under section 507(8) of the Criminal Code.