Dean Fraser Embry

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking on charges arising from Toronto in 2021 and Durham in 2024.

The court imposed a global sentence of six years, reduced by one year for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, resulting in approximately two years and one day remaining to be served after credit for pre-sentence custody at 1.5:1 and credit for strict bail conditions.

The sentence was followed by two years of probation.

The court considered the accused's difficult background, including loss of his mother to suicide, exposure to violence and poverty, addiction issues, rehabilitative potential, and the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking.

This decision addresses a Stage 1 application under sections 278.93 to 278.95 of the Criminal Code concerning the production of third-party records held by Covenant House in a sexual assault prosecution.

The accused sought records related to an incident report that might contain the complainant’s first statement about the alleged assault.

The court emphasized the high threshold for production of third-party records, requiring a demonstration of "likely relevance" and a "sufficient, case specific evidentiary or informational foundation." Mere existence of records or that they contain a prior statement is insufficient.

The application was dismissed as speculative, lacking evidence that the records would provide added information or impeachment value beyond Crown disclosure.

This sentencing decision addresses the serious offences committed by Abdisatar Aden, who pleaded guilty to discharging a firearm endangering life, aggravated assault, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession contrary to a prohibition order.

The case involved a shooting of an 18-year-old victim, Amadou Suwareh, who suffered life-threatening injuries but survived.

The decision carefully balances aggravating factors such as the use of a modified fully automatic firearm, prior weapons prohibition orders, and possession of crack cocaine for trafficking, against mitigating factors including an early guilty plea, social context evidence of systemic racism and disadvantage, and the offender’s remorse and family support.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, reflecting the gravity of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence in the context of ongoing gun violence in Toronto.

This criminal retrial addressed the admissibility of evidence concerning an alleged sexual assault incident, where the accused had previously obtained a 'functional acquittal' on the mental element of sexual assault for that specific incident, though convicted on other factual bases within the same charge.

The defence invoked autrefois acquit and issue estoppel to bar the Crown from re-litigating the incident.

The court held that neither doctrine applied; autrefois acquit required a formal acquittal, which was absent, and issue estoppel was inapplicable because the matter was a retrial of the same charge, meaning no 'final determination' had been made on the issue, as per R. v. Cowan.

The accused, a former high school teacher, was charged with sexual assault against a former student, H.S., contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused groomed the complainant and engaged in sexual activity with her on multiple occasions while she was a student, abusing a position of trust and authority.

The defence argued that the complainant's memory was unreliable and inconsistent, making it unsafe to convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant inconsistencies and a lack of detail regarding the alleged sexual encounters, leading to an acquittal.

This criminal trial involved multiple allegations of sexual assault and sexual interference against A.R., a substitute teacher.

The court meticulously assessed the credibility and reliability of each child complainant's testimony, noting significant internal and external inconsistencies and pervasive evidence of collusion among the witnesses, particularly influenced by one central complainant.

The defence did not call evidence.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt for all complainants, concluding that the evidence was unreliable and insufficient to support convictions for sexual assault, sexual interference, or even simple assault.

A.R. was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, a former teacher, was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against a former student, M.L., who was 15 at the time of the offence.

The sexual assault count was stayed under the Kienapple principle, and the court proceeded to sentence the accused on the sexual interference count.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the breach of trust, the victim's age, the significant impact on the victim, and the grooming behaviour by the accused.

Mitigating factors included the accused's first-offender status and strong community support.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, and noting that conditional sentences are rarely appropriate for sexual offences against children, the court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, communication prohibition, and sex offender registry placement.

Henry Morales was found guilty by a jury of second-degree murder of his wife, Malena Morales, committed in 2006.

The court imposed a mandatory life sentence and determined the parole ineligibility period.

The Crown sought 16-18 years, while the defence argued for 12 years, reduced from 13 due to harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court considered aggravating factors, including domestic violence, abuse of trust, the presence of children during the murder, and post-offence conduct (staging the scene, flight to Mexico).

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record, genuine remorse, pro-social behaviour while in Mexico, and participation in rehabilitation programs.

The court also extensively discussed whether harsh pre-sentence custody conditions could be a mitigating factor for parole ineligibility, concluding they could.

Ultimately, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 15 years, commencing February 20, 2020.

This is an appeal from a detention order issued by the Ontario Review Board.

The original disposition became moot due to a subsequent detention order.

The appellant sought to incorporate the reasons from the new disposition into the current appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as moot, declining to hear it without a full and current record pertaining to the most recent disposition.

The appellant was convicted of drug offences arising from his participation in a conspiracy to import cocaine from Costa Rica to Toronto.

The conspiracy was thwarted and drugs were seized by Panamanian authorities.

The trial judge admitted laboratory evidence from Panamanian authorities obtained pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty request, which established that the seized substance was cocaine.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge misinterpreted section 36(1) of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act and that the provision was unconstitutional.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that section 36(1) properly permits the admission of foreign records containing hearsay and opinion evidence without requiring proof of necessity or threshold reliability, and declined to exercise its discretion to hear the constitutional challenge raised for the first time on appeal.

Both defendants were convicted of wilfully promoting hatred contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

Over three years, they published a community newspaper called Your Ward News that promoted hate against Jews and women, glorified Nazism, denied the Holocaust, and counselled violence against women.

The court imposed consecutive sentences: James Sears received one year incarceration (six months on each count, the procedural maximum for summary conviction); Leroy St. Germaine received a 12-month conditional sentence (six months on each count served consecutively, with house arrest conditions).

The court declined to impose probation on either defendant, finding such restrictions would unduly curtail Charter-protected freedom of expression.

The defendants were convicted of wilfully promoting hatred contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

Over a three-year period, the defendants published and edited a community newspaper that promoted hate against Jews and women, glorifying Nazism, denying the Holocaust, and demonizing both groups.

The sentencing decision addresses the appropriate custodial sentence, the application of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing, aggravating and mitigating factors, community impact, and the scope of probation conditions.

The court imposed a one-year jail sentence (six months on each count served consecutively) and declined to impose probation restrictions on publishing activities, finding such restrictions would violate Charter-protected freedom of expression.

An appellant found not criminally responsible for theft under $5,000 appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition ordering his continued detention at a forensic mental health facility.

The appellant argued there was no evidence he posed a significant risk of physical or psychological violence to the public, citing the absence of violent behaviour in recent years.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence supported the Board's finding that the appellant posed a significant threat to public safety based on his mental health history, criminal record, aggressive behaviour in detention, resistance to treatment, risk assessment scores, and lack of insight into his condition.

The appellant appealed his not criminally responsible (NCR) verdict on account of mental disorder, asserting that his guilty pleas were invalid due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

The trial defence counsel, despite the appellant's stated opposition to putting his mental health in issue, unilaterally pursued an NCR disposition by requesting a psychiatric assessment under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The counsel failed to provide effective assistance by stepping outside his role as defence counsel, acting more as a social worker or parent.

The appellant and his parents did not fully understand the implications of an NCR finding on the appellant's liberty interest.

Additionally, the appellant had a potentially viable defence to the arson charge, claiming the fire was accidental, but counsel persuaded him to plead guilty to access the NCR disposition.

The court found the entire process was fundamentally flawed and denied the appellant procedural fairness.

The defendant was charged with four firearms offences following a shooting incident.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the shooter, which the Crown sought to prove through security video evidence, recognition identification by a police detective, and circumstantial evidence related to the defendant's vehicle and past association with the crime scene.

The court found the video quality insufficient for reliable identification, the detective's recognition evidence unreliable due to limited prior acquaintance and inability to specify features, and the circumstantial evidence too generic or temporally distant to establish identity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found not guilty on all counts.

The defendants, Tanisha Evans and Chantelle Rochester, were found guilty by a jury of importing cocaine, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

They were arrested at Pearson International Airport with approximately 2.4 kg of cocaine each, concealed in their luggage.

Both claimed they believed they were importing money, but the jury rejected their defence.

The court considered mitigating factors such as their lack of criminal records, consistent employment, and strong support systems, as well as the aggravating factor of importing a significant quantity of cocaine.

Applying the sentencing guidelines from R. v. Cunningham, the court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment for each defendant, along with ancillary orders for DNA samples, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the cocaine.

The appellant appealed her conviction for fraud over $5,000 arising from an insurance fraud conspiracy investigation known as "Project Whiplash" involving staged motor vehicle collisions.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's rejection of her section 11(b) Charter application regarding trial delay.

The Court of Appeal held that even accepting the appellant's position that individually charged but related defendants should not be treated the same as co-accused persons, there was insufficient institutional or Crown delay to support a Charter violation.

The total delay of approximately ten months fell within acceptable guidelines for provincial court trials under the pre-Jordan law and was not presumptively unreasonable under the Jordan regime.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated April 12, 2017, regarding his placement and security regime.

The appellant and Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care argued that the Board's decision was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it reasonable.

The Board had concluded that public safety would be compromised if the appellant was transferred unless the maximum security regime at Waypoint could be effectively replicated at the receiving hospital, which would negate the purpose of transfer.

The court noted that further assessment by an independent assessor remained possible at the appellant's annual hearing scheduled for early April.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 5, 2016.

The appellant challenged the Board's order regarding his detention and conditions.

The Court of Appeal found the appellant's conduct troubling but close to the threshold for satisfying the "significant threat to the safety of the public" requirement.

The Court upheld the Board's order but directed that on the next review, all possibilities including conditional discharge be fully addressed, noting the appellant's prior successful functioning on conditions for approximately four years.

The defendant was charged with assaulting the complainant with a garden clipper, mischief under $5000, threatening the complainant's dog, and theft under $5000.

The defendant pleaded guilty to mischief and threatening the dog.

At trial, the defendant was convicted of two counts of assault—one on June 5, 2015 (kicking the complainant in the chest) and one on June 7, 2015 (throwing garden shears at the complainant's face).

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as implausible and internally inconsistent, finding it contradicted by photographic evidence of bruising and the defendant's own voice messages.

The theft charge was dismissed by the Crown.