Malcolm McRae

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate sentence for the respondent convicted of human trafficking, receiving material benefits from trafficking, withholding documents, exercising control, and obstructing justice.

The court found the respondent posed a high risk to reoffend but declined the dangerous offender designation due to insufficient evidence of the requisite pattern of repetitive behaviour under section 753(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code.

However, the court designated the respondent as a Long Term Offender under section 753.1(2) and imposed a sentence of 10½ years incarceration (reduced by pre-sentence custody credit to 2 years 7 months remaining) followed by a maximum 10-year Long Term Supervision Order.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion seeking a ruling that the accused had waived solicitor-client privilege regarding communications with his former counsel.

The accused had filed a written waiver at the preliminary hearing, purporting to limit the waiver to oral communications during a specific time period and solely for the purpose of the preliminary hearing.

The court held that the waiver could not be limited to the preliminary hearing, as doing so would allow the accused to use privilege as a sword rather than a shield and risk misleading the court.

The Crown was permitted to cross-examine the former counsel on any relevant communications within the specified time frame.

The accused was sentenced following conviction for assault causing bodily harm in a domestic violence context.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment (credited as seven months and eight days with pre-sentence custody), followed by three years of probation.

The sentence took into account the accused's extensive criminal history involving violent offences dating back to 2007, the domestic nature of the assault, and the demeaning and violent manner in which the assault was perpetrated.

The court credited the accused minimally for time spent on bail release conditions.

The probation order included conditions requiring the accused to keep the peace, report to a probation officer, attend domestic violence counselling programs, maintain no contact with the victim, and remain at least 100 metres from places the victim frequents.

A lifetime weapons prohibition was imposed under section 109 of the Criminal Code, and a DNA order was made.

A $200 victim fine surcharge was imposed with one year to pay.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) sought production of a file held by the respondent's former solicitor, Shahzad Siddiqui, contending that the respondent had waived solicitor-client privilege over all communications during the retainer.

The respondent resisted, arguing the waiver was limited to oral communications during a preliminary inquiry.

The court found that the explicit waiver referred only to oral communications and was limited in purpose.

The documents sought were deemed innocuous and would not mislead the court or opposing counsel.

The court dismissed the application for production, upholding the respondent's claim of solicitor-client privilege and ordering the sealed file to remain in court custody.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood following a RIDE spot check.

The impaired charge was dismissed due to lack of evidence of impairment.

On the Over 80 charge, the defence raised multiple Charter breaches including timing of breath samples, failure to videotape, lost evidence, lack of reasonable grounds, and denial of right to counsel.

The court rejected all Charter breach arguments and found the Crown proved the accused operated a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

Conviction entered.

The Crown applied for an order requiring the offender to be assessed by a psychiatrist to determine whether he should be declared a dangerous offender or long-term offender following his conviction for human trafficking, exercising control over persons, receiving material benefit from trafficking, withholding passports, and obstructing justice.

The court found that the offence of human trafficking constituted a serious personal injury offence and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the offender might be found to be a dangerous offender based on a pattern of repetitive sexual exploitation of female victims.

The court ordered a psychiatric assessment.

The defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and breach of probation.

The assault occurred at a men's shelter where the defendant, aged 25, delivered 11 forceful punches to the head of a 54-year-old victim, followed by a kick to the prone victim's body.

The victim sustained multiple fractures to the nasal bones, sinus walls, and ribs, along with ongoing psychological trauma.

The defendant had a significant criminal history including three prior assault-with-weapon convictions and an extensive psychiatric history involving substance abuse, homelessness, and prior hospitalization.

The court imposed a sentence of 20 months' imprisonment with enhanced credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 10 months to be served, followed by three years' probation with strict conditions.

The appellant was pulled over for driving with a suspended license.

The police officer called a tow truck and conducted an 'inventory search' of the vehicle, discovering marijuana in the trunk.

The trial judge found the search reasonable and admitted the evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the officer had no statutory or common law authority to conduct the inventory search, resulting in a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the Court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of the state misconduct and the significant impact on the appellant's Charter rights.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The court determined whether the offence of human trafficking, as committed by the accused against two young women, constitutes a serious personal injury offence (SPIO) under section 752 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was convicted of exercising control over the victims, trafficking in persons, receiving material benefit from trafficking, withholding passports, and obstructing justice.

The court found that the trafficking offence met the SPIO definition through implied threats of violence and severe psychological harm, though the court declined to find that human trafficking inherently constitutes an SPIO in all cases.

The defendant brought a Charter application challenging the admissibility of his inculpatory statement to police.

The defendant alleged that police failed to facilitate his contact with counsel of choice, thereby breaching section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant suffered from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and had a developmental age of 12 to 13 years.

Despite being informed of these significant vulnerabilities by the defendant's Children's Aid Society worker, police proceeded with routine arrest procedures without accommodating the defendant's special needs.

The court found that police willfully disregarded the defendant's disabilities and failed to ensure meaningful contact with counsel of choice.

The court granted the application and excluded the defendant's statement from evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.