Low J.

The applicant sought a bail review after being denied interim release on charges including break and enter, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of fentanyl.

The applicant proposed a strict house arrest plan with electronic monitoring and two sureties pledging $30,000.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the bail review, finding that the proposed plan adequately addressed the secondary ground of public safety and that the tertiary ground did not require detention, as there was no evidence the firearm was used in the commission of the offences.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault against his intimate partner, who was pregnant, deaf, mute, and unconscious at the time of the attack.

The victim suffered life-threatening injuries.

The court considered the offender's substance abuse, remorse, and the harsh conditions of his pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court imposed a gross sentence of 7 years, reduced to 2 years, 6 months, and 11 days after applying credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant, charged with possession of a loaded handgun, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence and stay proceedings, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(b), and 12.

The court found the arrest and subsequent search of the vehicle were lawful based on a reliable 911 call.

While the court found a minor breach of the implementational aspect of s. 10(b) due to a 17-minute delay in contacting duty counsel, it declined to exclude the firearm or the applicant's spontaneous utterances under s. 24(2), concluding the breach was technical and did not warrant exclusion.

The defendant pleaded guilty to uttering a death threat, possessing a prohibited device, and possessing a loaded restricted firearm following a road rage incident where he brandished a handgun.

At the time, the defendant was on bail for drug and weapons charges in another province.

The court accepted a joint submission for a three-year global sentence.

The court awarded 166 days of credit for pre-trial custody, harsh pandemic conditions, and strict bail terms, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years and 178 days.

The accused was charged with the attempted murder of his spouse and assault with a weapon against another individual.

The court acquitted the accused of the assault with a weapon charge due to the unreliability of the complainant's evidence.

On the attempted murder charge, security video captured the accused brutally beating his unconscious spouse, causing life-threatening injuries.

The court found the specific intent to kill was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but convicted the accused of the included offence of aggravated assault, rejecting the defence of necessity.

The applicant accused brought an application for certiorari following appearances in the Ontario Court of Justice, where he sought directions that the complainant had no standing in a pre-trial admissibility hearing based on a recent Superior Court decision declaring the relevant Criminal Code provisions unconstitutional.

The application judge declined to make the ruling without a proper evidentiary record or notice of constitutional question.

The Superior Court dismissed the certiorari application, finding no breach of natural justice or procedural fairness, and noting that certiorari does not lie for an error of law.

The offender, a religious leader, was convicted of sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and uttering a threat against a 15-year-old victim who was a member of his congregation.

The court rejected the defence's request for a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children by persons in a position of trust.

Applying the D.D. sentencing ranges, the court imposed a total sentence of 5 years' imprisonment.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, uttering threats, and breach of probation following a violent attack on his sisters-in-law and niece.

After pleading guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation, the trial proceeded on the remaining charges.

The accused argued that his severe intoxication negated the specific intent required for attempted murder.

The court found that despite a high blood alcohol concentration, the accused had an operating mind, foresaw the consequences of his actions, and possessed the specific intent to cause death.

The accused was found guilty of attempted murder and uttering threats.

The accused, a 23-year-old first offender, was convicted by a jury of criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm after a high-speed motor vehicle collision that killed his best friend and injured another passenger.

The court balanced the principles of general deterrence and denunciation with the accused's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day in custody, followed by three years of probation and 240 hours of community service.

The court also imposed a 10-year driving prohibition, finding that the recent Criminal Code amendments did not remove the power to impose such a ban for criminal negligence causing death, as dangerous driving is an included offence.

The defendant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest in violation of ss. 7 and 12.

The defendant sustained a laceration to his head and bruising during a struggle after attempting to flee in his vehicle.

The court found that the defendant violently resisted arrest and weaponized his vehicle, and that the force used by the officers to subdue him was not unnecessary or excessive.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought a Charter application to exclude drug evidence seized following his arrest.

The applicant was initially detained for a drug investigation which yielded no evidence, but police continued to detain him for an additional 25 minutes to investigate a potentially stolen vehicle without informing him of the new reason for detention or re-cautioning him.

During this unlawful detention, police discovered cocaine near the applicant, leading to his arrest and a subsequent level 3 search that revealed more drugs.

The court found serious breaches of sections 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the evidence under section 24(2), concluding its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime following a dial-a-dope investigation.

He subsequently applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the police conduct constituted entrapment through random virtue testing.

The court found that the police were engaged in a bona fide investigation of a targeted individual based on an informer tip, and that the undercover officer merely provided an opportunity to commit the offence without inducing it.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a complainant who was under 16 at the material time.

The central issue was whether the Crown had proven the alleged acts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found significant conflicts between the complainant’s video statement, preliminary inquiry evidence, and trial testimony, and treated with caution the fact that the complainant had fabricated a rape allegation only months before reporting the charged conduct.

Although the allegations were not impossible, the court held they were not proved beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals on all counts.

The applicant was charged with possession of forged credit cards and child pornography after the CBSA intercepted a package of blank payment cards addressed to him.

After a Justice of the Peace refused to issue a search warrant due to insufficient grounds, police conducted a controlled delivery and arrested the applicant in his home without a warrant.

The police subsequently obtained a search warrant based partly on evidence found during the unlawful arrest and misleading information.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found severe violations of the applicant's s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights, noting the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest and relied on a mere suspicion.

The evidence, including the child pornography found on the applicant's computer, was excluded under s. 24(2).

The defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking cocaine to an undercover police officer.

He subsequently brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that the officer entrapped him during their initial telephone conversation by providing an opportunity to commit an offence before forming a reasonable suspicion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the officer's use of coded street vernacular elicited responses from the defendant that established reasonable suspicion before any offer to purchase drugs was made.

Furthermore, the court held that the targeted investigation of a tip was bona fide and did not involve unfair tactics.

The accused, charged with attempting to intimidate a justice participant and escaping custody, brought an application for the jury to take a view of the courtroom at the Old City Hall Courthouse where the alleged offences occurred.

The accused argued that a view was necessary because the Courts of Justice Act prohibited photography of the courtroom.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the statutory prohibition against photography did not apply to the scenes of crime photographs produced by the Crown.

The court concluded that the photographs, drawings, and other evidence would adequately permit the jury to understand the courtroom layout, and there was no real advantage to taking a view.

The offender was found guilty of aggravated assault after attacking a kinsman from behind with a machete, causing permanent scarring.

The Crown sought 4 to 5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a reformatory sentence of 18 to 24 months.

The court rejected the defence's proposed sentence, noting the vicious and unprovoked nature of the attack.

The offender was sentenced to 4 years imprisonment, less 9 days credit for pre-trial custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused struck a pedestrian with his vehicle in a strip mall parking lot following a verbal altercation and drove away without stopping.

He was charged with dangerous driving, failing to stop, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and breach of recognizance.

The court found the accused guilty of failing to stop and breach of recognizance, but acquitted him of the assault and dangerous driving charges, finding reasonable doubt as to whether the collision was intentional or if the driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

On cross-motions for summary judgment and summary dismissal, the court rejected a windshield repair company's claim for additional payment beyond the specific amounts authorized by an insurer for thousands of repairs.

The court held that each repair was governed by a separate contract formed when the insurer authorized the work at a stipulated rate and the plaintiff performed it without renegotiation.

The purported assignment language in the work order did not assign the insurance policy, and the insureds had no enforceable monetary claim to assign where the repairs had been completed at no cost to them.

The plaintiff's reliance on an asserted market rate was irrelevant, and the action was summarily dismissed.

Sentencing for possession of large quantities of heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, together with possession of proceeds of crime.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly specific deterrence, given the respondent's otherwise strong family support, business success, and lack of criminal record, but found those same circumstances showed the offences arose from greed rather than need.

A 10-year sentence was found fit in light of the scale of the drugs and the harm associated with heroin and cocaine trafficking.

The court granted 6 months' credit for restrictive bail conditions over approximately four years, resulting in a net global sentence of 9 years and 6 months, together with forfeiture of seized funds, a DNA order, and a s. 110 prohibition.