Leigh Van Gorder

The applicant, who was convicted in 1998 of multiple sexual offences against his adopted daughter, applied to terminate his lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) reporting obligations.

The court considered the serious nature of the interfamilial child sexual abuse and the applicant's ongoing cognitively distorted thinking that shifted blame to the victim.

Finding no objective evidence of a low risk to reoffend, the court concluded that the ongoing registration requirement was not grossly disproportionate to the public interest.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for break and enter, assault, and assault with a weapon.

At the initial disposition hearing, the Ontario Review Board found that the accused, who suffers from Schizoaffective Disorder, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight and recent commencement of medication.

The Board ordered the accused detained at the hospital with limited privileges, including a prohibition on cannabis use, finding he was not yet ready for indirectly supervised community access.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for attempted murder and designated a high-risk accused, appeared for his annual review hearing before the Ontario Review Board.

The Board found that he continues to present a significant threat to the safety of the public due to his schizophrenia, despite improvements in his mental status and adherence to treatment.

The Board ordered the continuation of his current detention disposition without changes to his privileges.

Additionally, on the joint request of the parties, the Board ordered the hospital to arrange a formal risk assessment to assist in determining at the next annual review whether to refer his high-risk accused designation to the Superior Court for review.

The accused was found unfit to stand trial on charges including harassing communications and mischief, stemming from hundreds of unwarranted calls to emergency services.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing.

Based on psychiatric evidence that the accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder and intellectual disability, and continues to experience delusions and exhibit aggressive behaviour, the Board concluded she remains unfit to stand trial.

A detention order was issued to keep the public safe while managing her mental condition, with provisions for controlled community access if her condition improves.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had recently been transferred to a new hospital following aggressive incidents.

The attending psychiatrist testified that the accused's behaviour had markedly improved following medication adjustments, though he remained a complex, high-needs patient.

Adopting the joint submission of the parties, the Board found that the accused continues to present a significant threat to public safety and ordered his continued detention at the hospital.

Michael Malabre was convicted following a jury trial of possessing cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possessing the proceeds of crime under $5,000.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of five to seven years, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 18 to 24 months, citing pre-trial custody conditions and the effects of anti-Black racism.

The court found a conditional sentence inappropriate, imposing a sentence of four years and nine months incarceration.

The judge considered aggravating factors including the dangerous nature and quantity of drugs (fentanyl), the commercial scale of the trafficking, evidence of prior sales, and the mixing of drugs.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, difficult upbringing, and harsh pre-trial detention and stringent bail conditions.

The court found insufficient evidence to connect anti-Black racism to the offender's moral blameworthiness in this specific case.

The defendant, Kayne Robinson, was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime (cash over $5,000).

A third charge of cannabis possession was withdrawn.

The Crown's case relied on police observations during a search warrant execution and expert testimony regarding drug dealing practices.

The defence argued that the cocaine was not in Robinson's possession and highlighted inconsistencies in police testimony, a gap in surveillance, and lack of forensic evidence.

The court found Robinson not guilty of the cocaine-related charges due to reasonable doubt arising from the inconsistencies in police evidence and Robinson's credible testimony.

The court also provided guidance on the Superior Court's jurisdiction over summary conviction offences when charged alongside indictable offences, noting that the Superior Court generally lacks jurisdiction for standalone summary offences and that reconstituting as a summary conviction court would be unwise due to potential appellate conflicts.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion alleging breaches of their rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter following a warrantless arrest and subsequent strip searches.

The police arrested the accused based on an uncorroborated tip from a confidential informant and conducted strip searches before allowing them to consult with counsel.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, rendering it and the subsequent strip searches unlawful.

The court also found a blatant violation of the right to counsel.

Concluding that the Charter breaches were serious and had a profound impact on the accused, the court excluded the seized drug evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking after a police officer found cocaine in his rental vehicle following a traffic stop.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, alleging breaches of his rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the initial traffic stop was a pretext for a criminal investigation and not a valid stop under the Highway Traffic Act, resulting in an arbitrary detention.

The court also found that the officer's demands for the rental agreement and questions about the accused's travel itinerary constituted unreasonable searches and seizures.

Furthermore, the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the multiple serious Charter breaches warranted the exclusion of the drugs under section 24(2).