Samir Adam

The accused brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant and production orders, arguing the underlying informations to obtain (ITOs) were invalid.

The court previously found the authorizations invalid due to improper oaths and a lack of officer notes.

After recalling the affiant officer, the court varied its findings, concluding the officer did prepare the ITOs, though the oath defects remained.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court held that while the state conduct in failing to properly swear the oaths was moderately serious, the impact on the accused's Charter rights was mitigated by the existence of reasonable grounds, and society's interest favoured adjudication on the merits.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with offences under the Taxation Act, 2007, sought an order prohibiting the Ontario Court of Justice from proceeding with his trial pending his appeal of a dismissed certiorari application.

The applicant argued that his notice of appeal automatically stayed the trial proceedings and suspended the lower court's jurisdiction.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that an appeal does not automatically stay proceedings and that the lower court retained jurisdiction to consider the Crown's joinder application.

The accused brought a Garofoli application to quash a search warrant and two production orders issued during a tax fraud investigation.

The court found the search warrant invalid because the information to obtain (ITO) was never sworn under oath.

The court also found the production orders invalid because the affiant swore the ITOs without personal knowledge of their contents, and one of the ITOs was commissioned by a lawyer not authorized to take oaths in Ontario.

The application was granted and the warrants were quashed.

The Federal Crown brought an application to change the venue of the respondents' substantive application, which sought to attack a search warrant executed primarily in North Bay.

The Crown argued the matter should be heard in Ottawa, where the warrants were authorized.

The court found that while the issuance of a search warrant constitutes a pre-charge criminal proceeding, creating a presumption for the originating jurisdiction, the balance of convenience strongly favoured North Bay.

The respondents resided and operated businesses in North Bay, and the majority of the searched locations were there.

The Crown's application for a change of venue was dismissed.

M.M. sought a bail review of a detention order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to COVID-19 and his underlying health conditions.

The applicant, charged with multiple drug trafficking and compliance offences, proposed a release plan with a surety (K.D.) and GPS monitoring.

The court accepted the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change but ultimately found the proposed surety unsuitable due to a shared history of drug addiction with the applicant, which jeopardized the applicant's sobriety and the plan's ability to mitigate secondary grounds risks.

The court also considered the strong Crown's case and the public's confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused, J.M., was charged with sexual offences against his stepdaughter, B.V., a young person under 16 years of age, between June 1, 2017 and December 30, 2017.

The charges included sexual touching contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code, sexual touching by a person in a position of trust or authority contrary to section 153(1)(a), and sexual assault contrary to section 271.

The trial proceeded over five days.

The Crown's case rested primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a child witness.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable, rejected the accused's evidence, and convicted him on all counts.

The court found that the accused intentionally touched the complainant for a sexual purpose on approximately ten occasions, exploiting his position of trust and the complainant's vulnerability.

The accused, Michael Vitello and Salvatore Raia, were jointly charged with conspiracy to kidnap, sexually assault, and murder Sonia Bernard/Vitello.

Vitello also faced multiple individual charges including assault, mischief (damaging property, car with sugar, dog interference), watching or besetting, and bail breaches, to which he pleaded guilty to some.

The court found both Vitello and Raia guilty of conspiracy based on extensive corroborative evidence, including witness testimony, cellphone records, and surveillance footage, detailing a gruesome plan to abduct, sexually assault, murder, dismember, freeze, and dispose of the victim's body.

A key witness, Chris Richards, initially involved in the plot, warned the victim, preventing the crime.

The court accepted Richards' testimony, finding him credible despite minor inconsistencies, and rejected the defense's characterization of him as a manipulative liar.

Vitello was also convicted on all remaining individual charges.

The offender was convicted of taking two individuals hostage in Somalia for 15 months.

He acted as the translator and negotiator for the hostage-takers, demanding a ransom and threatening to kill the hostages.

The hostages were held in deplorable conditions and one was repeatedly physically and sexually assaulted.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 15 years in prison, less credit for pre-sentence custody on a 2:1 basis.

The accused was charged with hostage taking in relation to the kidnapping of Amanda Lindhout and Nigel Brennan in Somalia.

The accused admitted to acting as the negotiator and translator for the hostage takers but raised the common law defence of duress, claiming he was forced to participate under threat of death or bodily harm.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as unbelievable, relying on intercepted communications and admissions made to an undercover officer that he participated for a share of the ransom money.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting under duress, and he was found guilty as a party to the offence.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and sexual assault against his intimate partner.

The charges arose from events where the accused struck the complainant in the face, pushed her out of a moving van and directed the driver to drive away while she was partially underneath it, and later forced her to have sex while she was recovering from her injuries.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the defence's theory of self-defence and accidental injury.

The accused was found guilty on all three charges.

The accused brought a motion to adjourn his criminal trial pending the completion of an appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal regarding a decision under s. 38 of the Canada Evidence Act that refused further disclosure on national security grounds.

The court noted that the criminal proceeding had been ongoing for 27 months and an adjournment would push the trial beyond the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

Finding that the Federal Court judge had already concluded the non-disclosed information would not materially affect the accused's ability to make full answer and defence, the court dismissed the motion to adjourn, prioritizing the public interest in having the trial proceed on the merits without undue delay.

The accused was charged with historical sexual offences against his daughter, alleged to have occurred between 1974 and 1979 when the family lived in Ontario.

The accused had previously pled guilty to sexual assaults against the complainant occurring between 1979 and 1987 in another province.

At trial, the accused denied any sexual contact during the Ontario years.

The court rejected the accused's evidence but found the complainant's evidence regarding acts of intercourse and fellatio to be unreliable due to inconsistencies and delayed disclosure.

However, the court found the complainant's evidence regarding fondling and digital penetration to be credible and corroborated by prior consistent statements.

The accused was acquitted of rape, sexual intercourse with a female under 14, and incest, but found guilty of indecent assault and gross indecency.

The accused was initially found unfit to stand trial on murder charges on January 4, 2017, and a sixty-day "make fit" order was issued.

At the March 10, 2017 hearing, the Crown conceded that it had not met its burden of proving fitness on the balance of probabilities.

The court found the accused remained unfit to stand trial, primarily due to cognitive impairments caused by major depressive episode and schizophrenia that prevented him from meaningfully participating in trial and instructing counsel.

The offender, suffering from schizo-affective disorder and psychotic delusions, fatally stabbed a fellow resident in a rooming house.

Following an unsuccessful NCR defence, a jury found him guilty of manslaughter.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years imprisonment, less 4 years credit for pre-trial custody, emphasizing the need for general deterrence and public protection through psychiatric treatment within the federal penitentiary system.

The offender, who suffers from severe schizo-affective disorder, was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury after stabbing a fellow rooming house tenant.

The court weighed the principles of general deterrence and public protection against the offender's mental illness and need for rehabilitation.

The offender was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment, less 4 years' credit for pre-trial custody, with a strong recommendation for treatment at a Regional Treatment Centre.

The appellant challenged convictions for two counts of defamatory libel arising from sexually explicit communications sent and posted online in the complainant's name after a restaurant service dispute.

The court held the circumstantial evidence, including the origin of the IP address, password-protected internet access, and similarities in writing style, reasonably supported the finding that the appellant authored the communications.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted in part.

While a 90-day custodial sentence remained fit, the court held the sentencing judge erred by failing to consider the impact of non-intermittent custody on the appellant's young children and varied the sentence to intermittent service.

The accused pleaded guilty to disguise with intent and aggravated assault arising from a convenience store robbery on May 6, 2012.

The accused, aged 25 with no prior record, entered the store with his face concealed, brandished a knife, and stabbed the clerk in the abdomen during a struggle.

The Crown sought two years less a day plus probation, emphasizing general deterrence and public protection.

The defence sought 12 months, arguing for credit for pre-sentence custody and extensive rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed 15 months custody (7 months additional after pre-sentence custody credit) plus two years probation, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and restraint principles applicable to youthful first offenders.