Lenny Hochberg

The accused, a 30-31 year old man, was charged with child luring under section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for communicating with a 13-14 year old girl via Facebook Messenger over a 17-month period.

The Crown alleged the communications were for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault or abduction.

The defence conceded the accused communicated intentionally with a person under 16 years of age but disputed whether the communications were for the specified criminal purpose.

The court found that the messages, when read contextually and considering the meaning of emojis used, constituted grooming behaviour designed to facilitate a designated offence.

The accused was convicted.

The offender pled guilty to conspiracy to export cannabis, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possessing proceeds of crime, and breaching a weapons prohibition order.

During his arrest, police used excessive force by unjustifiably tasering him, resulting in a section 7 Charter breach.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the gravity of the offences, including the large quantities of drugs and sophisticated conspiracy, against mitigating factors such as the guilty pleas, house arrest bail, and the Charter breach.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment.

The applicant, Christopher Punzo, charged with possession of cocaine for trafficking, sought the return of $80,620 in seized cash under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code to cover his legal expenses.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to satisfy the onus that he had no other assets or means available to meet his reasonable legal expenses.

The judge determined that the applicant had misrepresented his financial situation and possessed significant undisclosed funds and equity in a condominium, concluding that access to the seized funds was not "truly necessary."

The applicant, Dean McAlpine, brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence based on alleged violations of ss. 7 (excessive force during arrest) and 10(b) (right to counsel) of the Charter.

The court found that the police used excessive force by deploying a taser drive stun after the applicant was compliant, breaching his s. 7 rights.

However, the court found no breach of s. 10(b) regarding the right to counsel, as the applicant was offered a call to duty counsel when he could not provide his chosen counsel's full details, and privacy was afforded.

The court dismissed the request for a stay of proceedings and exclusion of evidence, finding that a sentence reduction would be the appropriate remedy for the s. 7 breach.

The defendant, Aziel Bailey, was charged with possessing over 30g of cannabis for distribution, contrary to s. 9(2) of the Cannabis Act.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in possession of the large quantity of cannabis found in the residence he fled.

The court assessed the credibility of police witnesses and the defendant.

The defendant's testimony, which attempted to explain his presence in the residence and his flight, was rejected as implausible and untruthful.

Based on the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's flight, the contents of his satchel, the presence of drugs in adjoining residences, the smell of cannabis, and his non-compliance with police commands, the court concluded that the defendant was fully aware of and maintained control over the cannabis.

The court found the defendant guilty.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit two defendants to trial on nine drug-related offences arising from the seizure of cocaine, marijuana, and proceeds of crime from a house at 54 Sharpe Street in Toronto on November 25, 2015.

Bromfield conceded committal only for cocaine and proceeds found on his person.

Smithson conceded committal only for cocaine found in the basement where she resided.

The court applied the test for sufficiency of evidence at committal, focusing on the doctrines of constructive and joint possession.

The court found insufficient evidence to support committal on contested counts, discharging both defendants on most charges while committing Bromfield on two counts and Smithson on one count.