Dean F. Embry

The accused, charged with sexual assault and administering a noxious substance, brought an application under s. 276(2) and s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to introduce photographs and WhatsApp messages depicting prior sexual activity with the complainant.

The accused sought to use this evidence to impeach the complainant's credibility, as she had testified at the preliminary inquiry that they were 'just friends'.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the evidence was relevant, its probative value was low due to ambiguity in the messages, and its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its probative value.

The offender was convicted of assault, threatening, and use of an imitation firearm while threatening passengers on a streetcar.

The Crown sought 18 months' custody, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 1 year.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of prior record, mental health struggles, and background as a refugee from Rwanda.

The court imposed the mandatory minimum sentence of 1 year in custody, less 8.5 months of pre-sentence credit, followed by 2 years of probation.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application under ss. 8 and 9.

The appellant contended the police lacked reasonable grounds to arrest him and demand breath samples after observing him driving the wrong way on a ramp and exhibiting signs of impairment.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly concluded the officers had the necessary subjective and objective reasonable grounds.

The court further held that even if a Charter breach had occurred, the breathalyzer results would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's reliance on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant posed a significant risk of violence to hospital staff if he remained in a medium secure facility without a medication change.

The court found it was reasonable for the Board to rely on evidence regarding enhanced security and potential privileges at Waypoint.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board, challenging the scope of a no-contact provision that included the Toronto Star.

The Court of Appeal found sufficient evidence to justify the continued inclusion of the Toronto Star in the condition, noting the appellant's history of threatening and harassing behaviour targeting media agencies.

The appeal was dismissed, subject to minor modifications proposed by the respondents.

The accused, charged with invitation to sexual touching, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated trial date was 34.7 months.

The court found that a significant portion of the delay was attributable to the Crown's failure to disclose relevant computer forensic evidence until shortly before the original trial date, necessitating an adjournment.

Finding that the delay exceeded the guidelines and caused actual prejudice to the accused, the court granted the application and stayed the proceedings.

The appellant challenged the dismissal of his certiorari application seeking to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for second degree murder.

He argued the evidence could support committal only for manslaughter and that the inferences drawn by the preliminary inquiry judge amounted to speculation.

The Court of Appeal held that, at the preliminary inquiry stage, the inference most favourable to the Crown must be drawn and that difficult inferences may still be reasonable.

It found the inferences supporting committal under ss. 21(1) and 21(2) of the Criminal Code were reasonably available given the appellant's conduct, the conduct of his accomplices, and the planning and execution of the robbery.

The respondent, a first offender, pleaded guilty to importing 9.56 kilograms of high-grade heroin into Canada as a courier.

The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of seven years and nine months, treating heroin as only marginally more dangerous than cocaine and considering the respondent's wilful blindness as a mitigating factor.

The Crown appealed the sentence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that heroin is significantly more dangerous than cocaine and that wilful blindness is not a mitigating factor.

The Court established a sentencing range of 12 to 17 years for first offender couriers importing large amounts of high-grade heroin for personal gain, and increased the respondent's sentence to 14 years and nine months.

The appellant appealed her sentence for dangerous driving causing bodily injury and failing to remain.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's six-year sentence for dangerous driving exceeded the Crown's requested maximum of five years and fell outside the acceptable range.

The appeal was allowed, reducing the dangerous driving sentence to four years (for a global sentence of five years) and the driving prohibition from sixteen years to eleven years.