Jack Lloyd

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge imposed on the respondent, an employee at an illegal psilocybin storefront, who pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police seized over 126 kg of psilocybin.

The Superior Court of Justice found the sentencing judge erred in principle by suggesting the respondent might not have known the enterprise was illegal, which contradicted the essence of his guilty pleas.

The appeal court also found the conditional discharge demonstrably unfit given the large quantity of drugs and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence varied to a suspended sentence.

The trustee in bankruptcy moved for a phase-one determination that profit payments made by Douglas Grozelle to net winners in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme were void as against creditors and recoverable for the estate.

The court found the hallmarks of a Ponzi scheme, held insolvency and fraudulent intent could be inferred globally, and concluded the payments were void under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and not saved by good-faith or good-consideration defences.

The court approved a two-stage insolvency process: common liability issues resolved summarily now, with individualized quantum determinations in phase two.

The winners’ cross-motion for broad directions attacking the trustee’s process and authority was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to cross-examine the affiant who obtained a search warrant, and a disclosure motion requesting all source documents for the investigation.

The Crown opposed both motions.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion as untimely and lacking focus, noting that disclosure had been deemed complete at a prior judicial pretrial and the parties had confirmed readiness to proceed.

The court also dismissed the motion for leave to cross-examine, finding that the defendants failed to identify any material misrepresentations, errors, or omissions in the Information to Obtain that would undermine the grounds for issuance of the warrant.

The court emphasized that cross-examination is only permitted in narrow circumstances where the defendant demonstrates a basis for believing the cross-examination will elicit evidence tending to discredit a precondition for the authorization.

The applicant landlord, Java Investments Limited, applied for a declaration that its commercial lease with the tenant, Tkaronto Trees, was lawfully terminated, and sought to set aside a municipal barring order closing the premises due to unlicensed cannabis sales.

The tenant argued it had an indigenous sovereign right to operate the dispensary and was not subject to provincial cannabis laws.

The court held that provincial laws applied to the premises and implied terms into the lease requiring compliance with provincial law and prohibiting the tenant from exposing the landlord to prosecution.

Because the tenant breached these implied terms, the court declared the lease validly terminated, denied relief from forfeiture, set aside the barring order, and granted a permanent injunction and eviction order.

The applicants sought to exclude firearms and drug-related evidence, arguing that initial warrantless searches of their residence and subsequent searches conducted under warrants violated their section 8 Charter rights.

The court found that the broad "clearing search" of the entire residence, and a second search of a bedroom for firearms, were unreasonable.

It also determined that the subsequently issued search warrants were invalid because they relied on unlawfully obtained information and failed to meet *Lavallee* guidelines for law office searches.

Consequently, the court granted the applications, excluding all challenged evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the Charter breaches and their significant impact on the applicants' privacy interests, which outweighed the public interest in adjudication on the merits.

The decision concerns the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence in a prosecution for firearms and drug offences.

The accused, Hussein Al Hayawi, was stopped by police and found in possession of drugs and firearms.

The court considered whether the accused had knowledge and control over the firearms, ammunition, and cannabis found in the trunk of the vehicle, and whether the cannabis was possessed for the purpose of selling.

The court found the accused guilty on all remaining counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence established knowledge and control beyond a reasonable doubt.

Chris Vagenos pleaded guilty to five offences, including possession of psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of an undertaking.

The offences stemmed from his employment at a store selling magic mushrooms, and he breached his undertaking by returning to work there shortly after his initial arrest.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with a 30-month probation order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, emphasizing rehabilitation and finding the discharge not contrary to the public interest despite the breach of undertaking.

Matthew Ferguson pleaded guilty to possession of psilocybin for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a 15-month custodial sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the large quantity of psilocybin, the retail storefront operation, and the offender's managerial role and financial motivation.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, remorse, pro-social life, community involvement, and family support.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first six months, 100 hours of community service, a DNA order, and a 10-year/life weapons prohibition.

Roman Sydor pleaded guilty to possessing psilocybin for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He was an employee at a store openly selling psilocybin and genuinely believed the operation was legal.

The Crown sought a six-month conditional sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court considered aggravating factors, such as the store's deceptive appearance and the quantity of drugs, alongside significant mitigating factors, including the accused's guilty plea, lack of criminal record, belief in legality, and role as a low-level employee.

Drawing on a similar case involving another employee of the same business, the court determined that a conditional discharge was in the accused's interest and not contrary to the public interest, prioritizing rehabilitation over deterrence for this specific offender.

The Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that directed the renewal of a home builder's licence despite the sole owner's extensive criminal record.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal erred in law by interpreting the 'integrity and honesty' criterion in s. 38(1)(b)(iii) of the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017 as placing an onus on the Registrar to disprove the applicant's entitlement on a balance of probabilities.

The Court held that the provision allows the Registrar to deny a licence where it has reasonable grounds for belief that the applicant will not conduct itself with integrity and honesty, and the onus is on the applicant to prove otherwise.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to a new panel of the Tribunal.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that set aside a proposal to refuse a cannabis retail manager licence to the respondent.

The Registrar had proposed to refuse the licence due to the respondent's past operation of illegal cannabis dispensaries and related criminal convictions.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Tribunal did not err in law in applying the 'reasonable grounds to believe' standard of proof, nor did it make irrational inferences when concluding that the respondent's past transparency and subsequent conduct indicated she would comply with the law in the future.

The Appellants, a banquet hall corporation and its director, appealed convictions for numerous tax-related offences under the Employer Health Tax Act and Retail Sales Tax Act, and the imposed sentence.

The appeal grounds included the Kienapple principle, mens rea categorization, due diligence, arraignment defects, expert witness weight, unreasonable delay, witness credibility, and judicial recusal.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no legal or factual errors in the trial judge's findings regarding distinct offence elements, mens rea application, rejection of due diligence, and procedural regularity.

However, the court allowed the appeal against sentence in part, affirming the custodial term but significantly reducing the total fines, applying the principles of proportionality and totality, and capping daily fines to the date the Information was laid rather than the date of arraignment.

Applicants charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences related to possession and sale of cannabis brought a joint application challenging the constitutionality of sections 5(2) and 4 of the CDSA in combination with the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.

The applicants argued the provisions violated sections 7, 15, and 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding no violations of the Charter.

The court held that the ACMPR regime provided reasonable access to medical cannabis through multiple avenues and did not arbitrarily deprive applicants of liberty, discriminate against disabled persons or homeless individuals, or infringe freedom of expression.

The offender pled guilty to possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after operating an illegal storefront dispensary.

The Crown sought a $5,000 fine, while the offender sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing, noting the offender's positive background and the changing social attitudes towards marihuana.

However, the court found that a discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the commercial nature of the operation and the need for general deterrence.

A fine of $5,000 was imposed.

The accused, charged with offences related to OHIP billing fraud and medical marijuana, brought a motion to adjourn their trial scheduled for September 11, 2017.

The motion was based on the Crown's late notice, provided on August 8, 2017, of its intention to call a new expert witness without providing a report or a specific description of the proposed expertise.

The court found that the Crown failed to comply with the expert witness notice requirements under s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code.

To protect the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the court granted the adjournment.

The appellants were convicted of production of and possession for the purposes of trafficking in marijuana, and possession of proceeds of crime.

They appealed their convictions, arguing that the police violated their Charter section 8 rights by obtaining energy consumption data from their electricity provider, Horizon Utilities, without consent or judicial authorization.

The appellants contended that this data was used to obtain a search warrant for their residence.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellants had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the energy consumption data, and that the police examination and use of that data without judicial authorization constituted a breach of section 8.

However, the court found that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, as the police had acted reasonably given the state of the law at the time, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits outweighed the Charter breach.

The appeal was dismissed.