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 defendant, an eighteen-year-old with no prior record, pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death after colliding with another vehicle while driving nearly triple the speed limit in a senior safety zone.

The collision resulted in the death of a sixty-year-old man and caused severe, lasting physical and mental injuries to the defendant.

In determining the sentence, the court balanced the need for denunciation and deterrence with the principles of restraint and rehabilitation applicable to youthful first offenders.

Ultimately, the court sentenced the defendant to a conditional sentence of two years less a day with strict house arrest, followed by three years of probation and a five-year driving prohibition.

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 accused was charged with refusing to provide a sample into an approved screening device under the Criminal Code and careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown proved the careless driving charge beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence of aggressive and erratic driving, including high-speed passing and tailgating.

However, the court dismissed the refusal charge, finding that the accused's refusal was equivocal and that the officer rushed to judgment without affording the accused adequate opportunity to provide a sample, particularly given the accused's medical condition following a serious motor vehicle collision.

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 applied under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for the forfeiture of the proceeds of the sale of six clubhouses used by the Outlaws Motorcycle Club, as well as various seized property including Outlaws paraphernalia, currency, and weapons.

The responding party argued the application was statute-barred and raised several Charter challenges.

The court found the clubhouses were both proceeds and instruments of unlawful activity and ordered the proceeds of their sale forfeited.

The court also ordered the forfeiture of wearable Outlaws paraphernalia, currency, documents, and weapons as instruments of unlawful activity.

The court found that while the forfeiture of wearable paraphernalia infringed s. 2(b) of the Charter, the infringement was justified under s. 1.

The court declined to order forfeiture of decorative paraphernalia, support wear, and 'white power' memorabilia, finding insufficient evidence they were instruments of unlawful activity.

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 appealed a decision ordering the full forfeiture of $29,900 in seized cash under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, despite the parties reaching a settlement to return $4,000 to the claimant.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that proceedings under the Act are in rem and affect the world at large, meaning the court cannot simply rubber-stamp a settlement.

Because the cash was found to be proceeds of unlawful activity and there was no evidence establishing the claimant as the legitimate owner, mandatory forfeiture of the entire amount was required under section 3(1) of the Act.

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.

Following the dismissal of a motion for leave to appeal, the successful responding parties sought costs.

They submitted a joint draft bill of costs reflecting fees, disbursements, and HST, with a reduction applied for duplication of work between two law firms.

The court found the respondents entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis and held that the draft bill appropriately reflected the Rule 57.01 factors, including the complexity of the proceeding and late amendments to the grounds of appeal.

The moving party accepted the claimed amount but requested a deduction to account for an outstanding prior costs order.

The court fixed costs accordingly after deducting the outstanding amount.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing a motion for the interim preservation of over $4 million under the Civil Remedies Act.

The funds were the proceeds of the sale of a commercial property previously housing an illegal marijuana grow operation and later leased to a company involved in a stock fraud scheme.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's finding that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity.

Leave to appeal was denied.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion under the Civil Remedies Act for an order to preserve over $4 million, representing the sale proceeds of a commercial property.

The property had previously housed a massive, concealed marijuana grow operation run by tenants, and was later leased to a company involved in a U.S. stock fraud scheme.

The court found no issue estoppel from prior unsuccessful federal criminal forfeiture proceedings against the property owner.

While the court found reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity due to the grow operation, it ultimately dismissed the preservation motion.

The court concluded that preserving the funds would clearly not be in the interests of justice, as the owner had no knowledge of or participation in the unlawful activities, making a preservation order manifestly harsh and draconian.

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.