Marcus Bornfreund

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences after police executed search warrants at two apartments and arrested him.

The Crown conceded that the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to adequately connect information from a confidential source to the accused, meaning the warrants were issued without reasonable and probable grounds in violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The court found that the unlawful arrest also resulted in arbitrary detention and an unlawful strip search.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the police conduct in seeking a warrant without grounds was a serious breach that significantly impacted the accused's privacy interests.

Following the exclusion of evidence, the Crown offered no evidence and the accused was acquitted.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for murder due to schizophrenia.

The accused had been living independently in the community without incident since 2021 and demonstrated sustained remission of symptoms, strong insight, and strict medication compliance.

The hospital and the accused sought an absolute discharge, and the Crown did not oppose.

The Board concluded that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety and granted an absolute discharge.

The offender was found guilty of unauthorized use of a computer, possession of forged documents, and breach of probation after purchasing over 14,000 stolen credentials on the Genesis Market and possessing four fake IDs while on probation for similar offences.

The Crown sought a sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the sophisticated and pernicious nature of cyber fraud and the offender's prior record for similar offences.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it insufficient to meet sentencing objectives, and imposed a total sentence of 23 months' imprisonment followed by two years' probation.

The accused, who was convicted following a French-language trial, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging violations of his language rights under section 14 of the Charter and sections 530 and 530.1 of the Criminal Code.

He argued that the occasional use of English by the judge and prosecutor, the quality of the English-to-French interpretation, and the inclusion of English quotations in the written judgment infringed his rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the interpretation was of high quality, minor errors were corrected in real-time, and the accused's ability to understand the proceedings and make full answer and defence was not compromised.

The accused was found not criminally responsible (NCR) on two counts of second-degree murder and one count of aggravated assault.

At his initial Disposition hearing before the Ontario Review Board, the Board found that he remains a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing psychotic symptoms, limited insight into his substance use disorders, and a history of severe violence.

The Board ordered his detention at a secure forensic hospital.

While the hospital recommended indirectly supervised community passes, the Board restricted his privileges to accompanied passes only, finding that indirectly supervised passes were premature given his recent admission and need for further stabilization and assessment.

The accused was charged with three offences: fraudulently possessing computer passwords obtained from the Genesis Market (an online marketplace for stolen credentials obtained through malware), possessing four forged pieces of identification, and breaching a probation order prohibiting possession of identity documents not legally issued in his name.

The Crown proved that the accused controlled two Genesis Market accounts and purchased thousands of stolen credentials using cryptocurrency funded through a Coinbase account registered in his name.

Four forged driver's licenses bearing the accused's photograph but different names were found in his residence.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts after determining that the electronic evidence from the Genesis Market database was authentic and reliable, that the accused controlled the relevant accounts, and that the forged identification documents were clearly counterfeit.

The defendant was convicted of assaulting his intimate partner following a domestic dispute.

The assault occurred in the family home after the defendant took the victim's vehicle keys and purse, leaving their children in the van.

The defendant chased the victim around the kitchen island, swung at her with a closed fist, attempted to kick her, and then lunged and grabbed her.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years probation, finding that while the defendant had no criminal record and demonstrated remorse through counselling, the serious nature of intimate partner violence, the context of coercive control, and the presence of children required a conviction to reflect denunciation and deterrence principles.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's conditional discharge following a finding of not criminally responsible for murder.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had been living independently in the community and complying with her treatment regime.

The majority of the Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as she relies heavily on the high level of supervision and support from the forensic outpatient team to maintain her stability.

The Board ordered the continuation of the conditional discharge.

One member dissented, concluding that the accused no longer presents a significant threat and should be granted an absolute discharge.

This decision involves the conviction of Joseph Herrington for assaulting his intimate partner, Janice Wu, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the complainant, a neighbour, and the accused himself.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the judge found the complainant’s evidence credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, supported by the neighbour’s independent testimony.

The accused’s evidence was found implausible and inconsistent.

The court rejected the defence’s de minimis argument, emphasizing the seriousness of intimate partner violence.

The accused was found guilty based on the totality of the evidence proving the assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses an application under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for a witness to testify behind a screen in an assault case involving intimate partner violence.

The court considered the statutory factors and relevant case law, including the lowered threshold for granting such orders.

The complainant expressed emotional distress and discomfort at testifying in the presence of the accused, which the court found sufficient to grant the application.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of facilitating truthful testimony without compromising the accused’s right to a fair trial.

This case concerns the accused, Jore Henry, charged with possession of a prohibited firearm, careless storage of a firearm, and possessing a firearm with a defaced serial number.

The firearm was found hidden in a vehicle registered to Mr. Henry.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Henry had knowledge and control of the firearm.

The court reviewed evidence including vehicle registration, video surveillance, witness testimony, and the hidden nature of the firearm.

The court found that while an inference of knowledge was available due to ownership and use of the vehicle, the presence of other users with access, including the prior owner with a firearm-related criminal record, raised reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.

The offender, Joshua Johnson, was found guilty of manslaughter after being indicted for second-degree murder.

The court conducted a fact-finding exercise to determine the basis of the jury's verdict, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Johnson was the principal offender who fatally shot the victim, Daniel Boima, during a planned robbery.

The sentencing decision considered aggravating factors such as the planned robbery, use of a firearm, the victim being unarmed, the shooting in a residential area, and the offender's attempts to cover up the crime.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, strong family support, and particularly harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of 10 years in prison, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 4 years to serve, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The defendant, Damen Smith, faced charges including drug trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and firearm offences.

The charges stemmed from a police surveillance operation, a vehicle takedown, and subsequent searches of a Nissan Rogue and an apartment.

The court relied heavily on wiretap intercepts and circumstantial evidence.

The defendant was found guilty of drug trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime related to the vehicle.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the firearm charges due to poor police handling of evidence and the presence of other occupants, and also found reasonable doubt for the drug and proceeds charges related to the apartment due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's primary residence and the presence of another individual.

The Crown sought to admit preliminary inquiry evidence of a police officer (PC Stamplecoskie) at trial under s.715 or s.715.01 of the Criminal Code, as the officer was unavailable due to a workplace injury.

The defence argued the unavailability under s.715 was not sufficiently proven.

The court found the evidence insufficient to establish unavailability for s.715 but admitted the transcript under s.715.01.

The court declined to compel the officer's attendance for cross-examination, finding no suggestion of unfairness or lack of full opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary inquiry, and rejecting the defence's argument to read a necessity requirement into s.715.01.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of marihuana, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The evidence was obtained via a search warrant that contained an incorrect address, rendering it invalid.

The trial judge admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding the breach minor due to good faith and no risk of entering the wrong house.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in minimizing the seriousness of the Charter breach but ultimately upheld the admission of the evidence based on a holistic application of the R. v. Grant factors.

The Court also dismissed the appellant's appeal of the three-and-a-half-year sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's sentencing approach.

The applicant sought a bail review, arguing a material change in circumstances due to delayed medical surgery while in custody and a new release plan including electronic monitoring.

The court found no material change, noting that the correctional centre had taken steps to schedule the surgery and could provide adequate post-operative care.

The court further held that even if a material change existed, bail would be denied on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the applicant's lengthy criminal record, history of breaches, and the extremely serious nature of the kidnapping and robbery charges.

Bail was denied.

The accused applied for a review of her detention order on charges including robbery with a firearm and kidnapping, arguing a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan with two sureties and a delay in medical treatment.

The court admitted the new sureties as fresh evidence but found the accused failed to meet her reverse onus on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court held that the proposed release plan could not adequately address the risk of reoffending given the accused's extensive criminal record and history of breaching bail conditions.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

Following a jury conviction for trafficking cocaine, the accused brought an application to stay the verdict on the basis of entrapment.

The court applied the Supreme Court of Canada's framework for dial-a-dope operations to determine if police had reasonable suspicion before providing the opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found that the undercover officer's initial exchange with the accused crystallized the requisite reasonable suspicion before the officer requested to purchase drugs.

The entrapment application was dismissed.

The accused, Dushane Peart, was found guilty of possession of a loaded handgun following a shooting incident.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on video evidence and the accused's pre-arrest statement.

The court applied principles for identity proof in circumstantial cases and dismissed a mistrial application brought by the defence, finding no prejudice despite initial communication issues regarding the Crown's strategy for proving identity.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual touching of a complainant under sixteen arising from alleged incidents in a family home.

The court assessed the complainant’s evidence, incomplete text-message and audio-recording evidence, the evidence of the complainant’s boyfriend and mother, and the accused’s denial under the W.D. framework.

The court found significant concerns arising from incomplete or missing evidence, credibility and reliability problems in key Crown evidence, and transcript disputes concerning recorded calls.

Applying the criminal burden of proof, the court held that the evidence left a reasonable doubt and entered findings of not guilty on both counts.