Lisa Will

The defendant was charged with assault, assault with a weapon, kidnapping, forcible confinement, pointing a firearm, and firearm possession offences following a police stop on April 6, 2024.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the alleged victim, whose account was riddled with contradictions and demonstrated significant credibility issues.

The defendant testified that he had no knowledge of the firearm and denied assaulting or confining the alleged victim.

The court found the Crown failed to prove any charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of her section 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The applicant was charged with attempt murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon (x2), and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose arising from an incident on April 16, 2023.

The information was sworn on April 17, 2023, and the trial was scheduled to commence on August 5, 2025.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated conclusion of trial was 27 months and 28 days, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish both that the defence took meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The accused, Shagghary Scott, was pulled over for speeding, leading to a vehicle search and the seizure of a firearm.

Scott brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) related to arbitrary detention, failure to advise of reasons for detention, failure to provide rights to counsel, and unlawful search.

The court found multiple serious Charter breaches by the police, including an unlawful search of the vehicle under the Liquor Licence Act, failure to provide rights to counsel forthwith, and failure to ascertain the accused's decision regarding counsel.

The court concluded that admitting the firearm evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the firearm evidence was excluded, and the charges against the accused were dismissed.

This is a sentencing decision for two defendants, N.P. and C.O., who were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life to their daughter, J.P., contrary to s. 215(2)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

The conviction followed an appeal by the Crown after initial acquittals.

The court considered the unsanitary living conditions, the defendants' difficult upbringings, their youth at the time of the offence, and the absence of lasting physical or mental harm to the child.

Applying principles of restraint, individual deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months of probation for both defendants, rejecting the Crown's request for a conditional sentence and the defence's request for an absolute discharge for N.P.

The Attorney General of Ontario initiated a forfeiture proceeding under the Civil Remedies Act against property associated with the late Michael Norwood, controlled by 947014 Ontario Inc. The corporation moved for the release of $210,000 from preserved funds for legal expenses and for the conversion of the application to an action.

The court dismissed the request for legal expenses, holding that the Act only permits payment for expenses already incurred, not future retainers, and that disbursements and HST fall under the 15% cap.

The motion to convert the application to an action was deemed premature.

The court also authorized the payment of a judgment to a third-party creditor from the preserved funds.

No costs were awarded.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision ordering civil forfeiture of a property located at 855 Darby Road, Welland, and associated Hells Angels Motorcycle Club paraphernalia under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The property was owned by members of the HAMC and used as a clubhouse.

The Crown established that mortgage payments were funded in part by dues paid by HAMC members engaged in drug trafficking, and that the property was used as a meeting place where criminal activity was planned.

The Court of Appeal upheld the forfeiture order, finding the property constituted both proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity, and that the legitimate owner and responsible owner exceptions did not apply.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for a forfeiture order under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, seeking to forfeit $75,613 in Canadian currency and $1,734 in U.S. currency seized during a police search.

The currency was found in an apartment along with significant quantities of marihuana and crack cocaine, and drug paraphernalia.

The interested party, Eric Mahama, claimed the money was his life savings from lawful activities, stored at the apartment due to his mother's dementia.

The court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the seized currency constituted both proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity (drug trafficking), rejecting Mahama's explanation as not credible.

The application for forfeiture was granted.

The Crown applied under the Civil Remedies Act for the civil forfeiture of a rural property, alleging it was used as an instrument of unlawful activity after police discovered 723 alleged marijuana plants on the premises.

The property owner opposed the application, arguing he had no knowledge of the grow operation and was a responsible owner.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the Crown failed to prove the seized plants were actually marijuana, as no Health Canada certificate was provided.

Furthermore, the court held that the owner met the burden of proving he was a responsible owner and that forfeiture would clearly not be in the interests of justice.

The Attorney General of Ontario applied for civil forfeiture of a property used as a Hells Angels clubhouse and various Hells Angels paraphernalia under the Civil Remedies Act.

The court found the property was both an instrument of unlawful activity, as it was used as a safe haven to plan crimes, and proceeds of unlawful activity, as its mortgage was paid using dues funded by criminal acts.

The court also found that official Hells Angels paraphernalia were instruments of unlawful activity used for intimidation.

The owners failed to establish the responsible or legitimate owner exceptions.

The court rejected arguments that a prior federal plea bargain rendered the provincial forfeiture clearly not in the interests of justice, and ordered forfeiture of the property and official paraphernalia, along with costs against the owners.

The Attorney General applied for civil forfeiture of $29,900 found in an abandoned suitcase.

The claimant asserted ownership of the cash.

The parties reached a settlement to forfeit $25,900 and return $4,000 to the claimant.

The court found the cash was the proceeds of unlawful activity and the claimant failed to prove legitimate ownership.

The court refused to give effect to the settlement, holding that Rule 49 is not an independent basis for an order under the Civil Remedies Act, and ordered the entire $29,900 forfeited to the Crown.

The accused was stopped by police for erratic driving.

After failing a roadside breath test, he was arrested for driving while suspended and driving over 80.

The police impounded his vehicle and conducted an inventory search, discovering a loaded firearm under the passenger seat.

The accused brought Charter applications under ss. 8, 9, and 10, arguing the traffic stop was a ruse and the search was unlawful.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the stop was justified by erratic driving and the inventory search was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found the accused guilty of the firearms offences, concluding he had knowledge and control of the weapon.