Lisa Jørgensen

The appellant appealed his convictions for unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and choking with intent, as well as his sentence.

On the conviction appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's decision to permit cross-examination on his prior conviction for attempted murder under the Corbett framework, and alleged improper Crown conduct during cross-examination and closing argument.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion to allow the cross-examination given the defence's all-out attack on the complainant's credibility and the absence of other evidence to neutralize that attack.

The Crown's conduct was found to be vigorous but proper advocacy.

On the sentence appeal, the Crown conceded that the dangerous offender hearing should have proceeded under post-2008 legislation but sought to uphold the designation under the curative proviso.

The Court of Appeal rejected this submission, finding that the curative proviso was unavailable due to significant evidentiary overlap between the designation and sentencing stages and the possibility that fresh evidence could affect the designation determination.

The Crown sought to introduce historical text messages sent by the accused to his wife, which were obtained by police pursuant to a valid general warrant.

The accused sought to exclude the messages on the basis of spousal privilege under s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act and s. 189(6) of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, holding that spousal privilege is a testimonial privilege that protects a spouse from being compelled to testify, but does not render the communications themselves inadmissible when independently and lawfully obtained by police.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her certiorari application seeking to quash the order committing her to trial on drug-related charges.

The appellant argued that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error due to the absence of evidence, particularly regarding timing.

The Court of Appeal upheld the committal, finding that there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer knowledge and control of contraband found in locked rooms, including circumstantial evidence such as sole ownership of the house, items in plain view, mail addressed to the appellant, and intercepted communications with her co-accused spouse.

The court held that the lack of precise timing evidence did not render the inferences speculative.

The appellant appealed a sentencing decision from the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown conceded that the appellant, who was self-represented, was deprived of a fair hearing because the trial judge failed to provide appropriate assistance to her as a self-represented party.

The appellate court found it was not in a position to make the necessary factual findings to conduct the appeal and therefore allowed the appeal, remitting the matter back to the Ontario Court of Justice for a new sentencing hearing.

Leone Bruno brought an application to exclude evidence obtained via a search warrant, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds and violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Crown relied on a heavily redacted ITO to protect a confidential informant's identity, necessitating a judicial summary under the R. v. Garofoli framework.

The court assessed the adequacy of the judicial summary and other disclosure, finding it sufficient for the defence to mount a challenge.

Upon reviewing the unredacted ITO (with one minor excision), the court applied the Debot criteria (credibility, compelling nature, corroboration) and concluded that it provided reasonable grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The court also found that the affiant made full, fair, and frank disclosure regarding prior incident reports.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no s. 8 Charter violation was found.

Chukwuemeka Madumelu was sentenced for multiple counts of importing heroin into Canada and one count of possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking (Toronto charges), and an additional count of importing heroin while on bail (Brampton charge).

The court found the accused was more than a mere courier, actively involved in logistical arrangements for large-scale heroin importation.

Aggravating factors included the quantity and purity of heroin, the sophistication of the scheme, and re-offending while on bail.

Mitigating factors included community support, a dated criminal record, and an early guilty plea for the Brampton charge.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 19 years, while the defence sought 12 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, applying the totality principle to ensure proportionality, and granted 465 days of credit for pre-trial detention and stringent house arrest bail conditions.

A 10-year weapons prohibition order was also issued, but a DNA order was declined.

Caitlin Johannes sought certiorari to quash a committal order for trial on charges of possession of cocaine and marihuana for trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The application challenged the preliminary inquiry judge's inferences regarding possession, particularly wilful blindness, based on circumstantial evidence from a shared residence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the inference of wilful blindness was speculative, other inferences drawn by the preliminary inquiry judge regarding knowledge and control were reasonable and logically supported by the evidence, thus providing sufficient evidence for committal to trial.

The defendant, a young person, was charged with sexual assault, robbery, and uttering threats related to an incident in 1990.

The Crown's case relied heavily on DNA evidence found on the complainant's underwear, which matched the defendant's profile.

The defence challenged the complainant's reliability and the chain of continuity of the DNA evidence.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible on critical issues and accepted the DNA analysis, concluding that the only rational inference was that the defendant was one of the attackers.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing a breach of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

Although the total net delay, including retrial time, exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months, the court found the transitional exceptional circumstance applied.

The parties had relied on the prior Morin framework when the case was proceeding, and the operative delay under Morin guidelines, while exceeding them slightly, was not so egregious as to warrant a stay.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial.

The accused, Reece Korchinski and Darienne Colley-Welch, were jointly tried on multiple criminal charges, including possession of a firearm, pointing a firearm, unlawful confinement, robbery, and assault, arising from an alleged gun-point robbery.

Mr. Korchinski also faced charges for breach of court orders.

The Crown presented evidence from two witnesses, Matthew Thomas and Danielle Patai, whose credibility and reliability were significantly challenged due to dishonesty, inconsistencies, and animus towards the accused.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found the witnesses untrustworthy and their evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of both accused on all counts.

The accused, charged with nine drug offences, applied for a Rowbotham order after being denied legal aid funding.

The Crown conceded that the accused's right to a fair trial would be compromised without counsel but contested his indigency and whether he had exhausted all appeals.

The court found that the accused had exhausted his appeals and met the test for indigency, despite his initial failure to provide complete financial disclosure to Legal Aid Ontario.

The application was allowed, and the charges were ordered stayed unless the Crown agreed to provide funding at Legal Aid tariff rates.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The trial commenced in January 2015 and evidence was completed in June 2016, with final submissions heard in November 2016.

The accused's application was brought following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan, which established new presumptive ceilings for trial delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the net delay exceeded the 18-month ceiling, it was justified by exceptional circumstances and the transitional exceptional circumstance applicable to cases substantially completed before Jordan was released.

The Crown sought to introduce statements made by the accused to police during a voluntariness voir dire.

The accused opposed admission, arguing the statements resulted from improper inducements or oppressive circumstances.

The court found no oppression, characterized certain inducements as minor, and determined the accused maintained meaningful choice throughout the interviews.

The court ruled the statements were voluntary and admissible, finding the accused understood the seriousness of the situation and was selective in his responses to police questioning.