Leora Shemesh

The applicant sought to quash a search warrant executed at his residence on April 9, 2013, arguing that his Charter rights under section 8 were infringed.

The applicant contended that the Information To Obtain (ITO) was misleading and deficient, failing to demonstrate credibly-based probability that cocaine would be found at his home.

He also argued the warrant was facially invalid because it lacked a start time for the search.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the surveillance evidence sufficiently corroborated the confidential informant information to establish reasonable grounds to believe cocaine would be found at the residence.

The court noted deficiencies in the ITO's compliance with R. v. Rocha regarding disclosure of confidential informants' criminal records and motivation, but found these did not vitiate the warrant.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a police investigation based on information from a confidential informant.

Police conducted surveillance, observed the accused retrieving a duffle bag from a residence, and arrested him.

The court found no violation of s. 9 (arbitrary detention) or s. 8 (unlawful search) of the Charter, as the arrest was supported by reasonable and probable grounds based on the informant's information combined with police observations.

However, the court found a violation of s. 10(b) rights (right to counsel) due to a ten-hour delay in allowing the accused to contact counsel.

The court convicted the accused of simple possession of marijuana, finding that the Crown failed to prove the marijuana was possessed for the purpose of trafficking, as the expert evidence regarding THC degradation was insufficiently established.

Sentencing decision for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police executing a warrant seized seven kilograms of methamphetamine and cash from a vehicle controlled by the offender.

The court found the offender was a wholesale-level trafficker motivated by profit and not drug addiction, and that denunciation and general deterrence were the paramount sentencing objectives given the scale and seriousness of the offence.

Although the offender was a first offender and had endured lengthy restrictive bail conditions, his extensive prior involvement in kilo‑level cocaine trafficking and the large quantity of methamphetamine significantly aggravated the offence.

A global custodial sentence of nine years for trafficking, reduced by six months for restrictive bail conditions, with a concurrent sentence for possession of proceeds of crime, was imposed along with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with first degree murder arising from a fatal shooting in a Toronto bar.

The court ruled on several pre-trial evidentiary motions, including the admissibility of motive evidence, post‑offence conduct, hearsay statements of the deceased, and lay opinion recognition evidence based on surveillance footage.

Evidence of animus between the accused and the deceased and evidence of the accused’s alleged attempt to disguise his appearance after the offence were admitted as relevant circumstantial evidence.

Lay opinion identification evidence from a witness familiar with the accused was also admitted under the Leaney recognition rule.

However, hearsay statements attributed to the deceased describing a prior altercation were excluded for lack of threshold reliability under the principled hearsay exception.

A disclosure motion involving alleged alternate suspects and informant privilege was deferred pending an in camera and ex parte hearing.

The accused was tried for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The police seized seven kilograms of methamphetamine and $1,800 from the accused's vehicle pursuant to a general warrant.

The accused argued that the drugs were planted by the police from a previous seizure.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding him to be an active drug trafficker who engaged in counter-surveillance.

The court accepted the police evidence and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction sentence after pleading guilty to using a stolen credit card and possessing credit cards obtained by crime.

He argued that the sentencing judge erred by relying on facts not in evidence, misapprehending the facts, and improperly emphasizing denunciation and deterrence over rehabilitation when declining to grant a conditional discharge.

The court held that the sentencing judge properly relied on the agreed facts and reasonably concluded that the offences involved planning and deceit.

Applying the deferential appellate standard for sentence appeals, the court found no error in principle and concluded the sentence of fines totaling $1,000 and 18 months’ probation was not demonstrably unfit.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from search warrants on the basis that the information presented to the issuing justice was insufficient.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of break and enter and theft related to a series of automobile thefts from driveways and garages in the Greater Toronto Area.

Police obtained a general warrant for covert entry into a storage locker and a subsequent search warrant.

The court examined the affidavit supporting the warrants and found that despite numerous unsupported opinions and speculative statements by the affiant, there remained sufficient factual basis for the issuing justice to have granted the warrants.

The application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to twelve charges arising from a domestic relationship involving multiple assaults, unlawful confinement, extortion, threats, obstruction of justice, and breach of probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years imprisonment, credited on a 1.5:1 basis for two years of pre-trial custody, resulting in a suspended sentence and three years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and her family, anger management counselling, and weapons prohibitions.