R. Fedorowicz

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery simpliciter of a marijuana dispensary.

He had an extensive criminal record starting as a youth, but this was his first penitentiary sentence.

The Crown sought 3.5 years concurrent, while the defence sought two years less a day concurrent.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years (36 months) concurrent to his existing sentence, and granted 9 months of credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving 27 months to serve.

The accused, charged with fraud-related offences, brought a motion to exclude bank records obtained via a production order, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, and 11(d) of the Charter.

The accused argued that the Crown was estopped from relying on the records and that seeking a new production order mid-trial constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply as no prior judicial findings had been made regarding the records, and that the Crown's conduct was not oppressive or vexatious.

The court upheld the validity of the production order, concluding there were reasonable and probable grounds for its issuance, and ruled the evidence admissible.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault with a weapon arising from an altercation with his landlord.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly found corroboration, and applied uneven scrutiny to the defence evidence.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The court found the sentencing judge erred by failing to give adequate weight to the Crown's position that a conditional sentence was appropriate, and replaced the 60-day intermittent jail sentence with a 9-month conditional sentence.

The accused applicants brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude wiretap evidence obtained pursuant to a Part VI intercept authorization, alleging a violation of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The investigation stemmed from an armed robbery at a pawn shop where the owner was shot.

The applicants argued the information to obtain (ITO) relied on unreliable confidential informant information and that police failed to exhaust alternative investigative methods.

The court reviewed the redacted ITO and found that, even excluding the contested informant information, the remaining evidence—including DNA matches and association evidence—provided reasonable grounds for the authorization.

A supplementary application regarding police obtaining contact information from Ontario Works without a warrant was also dismissed.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused brought pre-trial motions challenging police access to his contact information from municipal social services, a production order for his cell phone records, and the admissibility of gloves and ammunition seized during execution of a robbery search warrant.

The court held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his address and telephone number in the circumstances, and upheld the production order because the information sought would afford evidence respecting the robberies.

However, the court found the search warrant was not properly granted because the information to obtain did not establish reasonable grounds to believe the accused was one of the actual bank robbers whose clothing could be found in the searched locations.

The court further held that the Crown failed to establish lawful seizure of the gloves and ammunition under s. 489 of the Criminal Code, and that the ammunition evidence was inadmissible as discreditable conduct because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed any probative value.

Sentencing for possession of large quantities of heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, together with possession of proceeds of crime.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly specific deterrence, given the respondent's otherwise strong family support, business success, and lack of criminal record, but found those same circumstances showed the offences arose from greed rather than need.

A 10-year sentence was found fit in light of the scale of the drugs and the harm associated with heroin and cocaine trafficking.

The court granted 6 months' credit for restrictive bail conditions over approximately four years, resulting in a net global sentence of 9 years and 6 months, together with forfeiture of seized funds, a DNA order, and a s. 110 prohibition.