Mark Edward Ertel

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual interference, alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.

The appellant argued that his trial counsel failed to adequately advise him on the decision to testify, specifically regarding the principles in W. (D.) and how his testimony could raise a reasonable doubt even if not fully believed.

The Superior Court of Justice admitted fresh evidence and found that the appellant was deprived of the information necessary to make an informed choice about testifying.

The court concluded this compromised trial fairness and the reliability of the verdict, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm knowing its possession is unauthorized and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order.

The offences involved the offender handling a restricted handgun in a commercial office while subject to two prior lifetime weapons prohibitions.

The Crown sought a total sentence of 3 years less pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court found the offences fell within the true crime end of the spectrum, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the offender's recidivism and disregard for court orders.

The court imposed a sentence of 2 years for the unauthorized possession and a consecutive 6 months for the breach of the prohibition order, less 3 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 2 years and 3 months remaining to serve.

The accused was previously found not criminally responsible for firearms offences and was subject to a disposition.

At his annual review hearing, the Ontario Review Board considered whether he continued to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The evidence indicated that his schizophrenia was well managed with medication, he had good insight into his need for treatment, and he was closely monitored by a community ACT team.

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

The offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after driving at 190 km/h in a 90 km/h zone, crossing the median, and colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

The collision resulted in the death of his passenger and bodily harm to the driver of the other vehicle.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the extreme speed and deliberate nature of the driving.

The offender was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, an eight-year driving prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The Crown appealed a stay of proceedings entered under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a violation of the accused's s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The application judge had found the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the application judge erred in her treatment of a discrete exceptional circumstance arising from the release of a Supreme Court of Canada decision that necessitated a rehearing of a change of venue motion.

The Court found the Crown had taken reasonable steps to mitigate the resulting delay and deducted an additional 93 days.

This brought the net delay below the presumptive ceiling.

The appeal was allowed and the stay of proceedings was set aside.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for assault causing bodily harm.

The accused, who has schizophrenia, had been living in the community, maintaining full-time employment, and participating in therapeutic programming without any reemergence of psychotic symptoms.

The hospital, the Crown, and the accused jointly submitted that he no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board agreed, finding that the accused's mental illness was well-controlled and he presented a low risk of future violence.

The Board granted an absolute discharge.

The prosecution alleged a police sergeant unlawfully entered and searched a private apartment, directed arrests and detention, and later altered an official occurrence report to fabricate grounds for entry.

The court found no lawful grounds, no exigent circumstances, and no fresh-pursuit basis, and accepted evidence that the impugned narrative was inserted after the fact.

Applying the breach-of-trust framework, the court held the conduct was a marked departure from expected standards and was undertaken for personal, non-public purposes.

The court also found the report-editing and related falsehoods proved obstruct justice beyond a reasonable doubt.

Convictions were entered on both counts.

The defendant was charged with dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and dangerous operation of a conveyance causing bodily harm following a motor vehicle collision on County Road 17 near Wendover, Ontario on October 9, 2022.

The collision resulted in the death of a passenger in the defendant's vehicle and injuries to the occupants of the other vehicle.

The Crown proved that the defendant was travelling at approximately 195 km/h in a posted 90 km/h zone when he lost control of his vehicle, crossed into the oncoming lane, and collided with an oncoming pickup truck.

The court found that the defendant's excessive speed constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver, satisfying the mens rea requirement for both offences.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

The accused was tried on charges of criminal harassment and mischief arising from post-separation conduct toward a former intimate partner.

The court found that repeated unwanted and degrading text messages, surveillance, unauthorized entry into the complainant’s home, confrontation of her new partner, and placement of a GPS tracking device in her vehicle established the actus reus of criminal harassment and supported a finding that the complainant’s fear was objectively reasonable.

Applying the subjective mens rea standard, the court held the accused knew or was at least reckless or wilfully blind to whether the complainant was harassed, particularly in light of repeated express demands to stop and his own acknowledgements in the messages.

The court also found that installing or causing the installation of the GPS device interfered with the complainant’s lawful use and enjoyment of her vehicle.

Convictions were entered on both counts.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of General Warrants and Search Warrants executed in a drug trafficking investigation.

The General Warrants, issued for covert surveillance of two residential locations, failed to include the statutorily required notice provision under section 487.01(5.1) of the Criminal Code, constituting a facial invalidity and breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The Search Warrants were subsequently obtained using information derived from the facially invalid General Warrants.

The court found that while the General Warrants were facially invalid due to the missing notice provision, the Search Warrants could otherwise have been issued based on the totality of the evidence, including amplified tracking data.

The court also addressed allegations of arbitrary detention and breach of the right to counsel.

Ultimately, the court dismissed the Charter applications, finding that despite the breaches, the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under the section 24(2) analysis.

The accused was found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for firearms offences following a standoff with police while experiencing a mental health crisis.

At his initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the Board found that he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his chronic recurring psychosis, lack of insight, and vulnerability to substance use.

The Board ordered a Conditional Discharge with conditions, including a weapons prohibition and an absolute prohibition on alcohol use, while permitting continued medical cannabis use under supervision.

This decision addresses the application to exclude evidence seized during a warrantless search conducted under s. 12(3) of the Cannabis Control Act (CCA).

The police officer stopped the accused for a traffic violation and observed a cannabis vape pen in the vehicle, which he believed constituted reasonable grounds to conduct a search.

The Court found that the vape pen is paraphernalia and not cannabis itself, and that the officer lacked objectively reasonable grounds to conduct the search without further investigation.

The Court also found a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter right due to delay in informing him of his right to counsel.

Balancing the factors under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the Court excluded the evidence due to serious Charter breaches despite the good faith of the officer.

The court considered an application by the Attorney General of Canada on behalf of France for the extradition of Prasanna Nallalingam to stand trial in France for murder and attempted murder.

The court found that a properly instructed jury could conclude that Nallalingam possessed the requisite mens rea for manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm, based on circumstantial evidence of his planning, provision of weapons, and command of the attack.

The committal order was granted under the Extradition Act.

The offender, Cory Leclair, was sentenced after being convicted of unlicensed possession of a prohibited firearm and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The charges arose from a brief incident in downtown Windsor where the offender took a loaded handgun from an intoxicated friend following an altercation and hid it under a nearby vehicle.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary term, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

Justice Pratt sentenced the offender to a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, emphasizing the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and strong prospects for rehabilitation.

The court considered whether to exercise its discretion to grant pre-charge Charter relief in the form of a declaration that the seizure of items by police during a criminal investigation was in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The Applicants, Eastway Tank Pump and Meter Ltd. and Neil Greene, had not been charged with a criminal offence but were under investigation following a fatal explosion.

The court reviewed the factual background, the parties' positions, and relevant case law on the availability of certiorari and declaratory relief prior to the laying of charges.

Ultimately, the court declined to exercise its discretion to grant the relief at this stage, finding the Charter issues best left to the trial judge, but left open the possibility of renewal if charges are not laid within a reasonable time and further evidence of reputational harm is provided.

The court considered whether an ante mortem statement by Emma Roy, made to Christopher Prieur two days before her death in a car accident, was admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Crown sought to admit the statement to show prior discreditable conduct by the accused, Kyle Trepanier.

The court found that the statement did not meet the threshold reliability requirement, as the circumstances did not negate the possibility of untruthfulness or mistake.

The application was dismissed.

This criminal trial concerned the defendant, Cory Leclair, who was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and being an accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm.

The charges stemmed from an altercation where Jamie Labelle, a companion of the defendant, brandished a handgun.

The Crown alleged Leclair took the bag containing the firearm from Labelle and hid it.

The court found the defendant guilty of illegal possession of a prohibited firearm (counts 4 and 8), concluding that the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial video evidence was that the defendant knew the gun was in the bag when he took possession of it.

However, the court found the defendant not guilty of being an accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm (count 9), as there was reasonable doubt whether Labelle had actually fired the weapon, despite some witness testimony.

Randall Hillier, charged with multiple offences related to the "Freedom Convoy" sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The total delay was approximately 34 months and 28 days.

The court deducted 65 days for defence-caused delay (counsel's refusal to attend a pretrial conference) and 40 days for exceptional circumstances (Supreme Court's Haevischer decision requiring re-hearing of a motion).

The net delay of 31 months and 13 days still exceeded the 30-month Jordan ceiling, leading the court to grant the application and stay the charges.

The appellant was convicted of criminal harassment, willfully altering computer data, and making available intimate images without consent, stemming from a "revenge porn" incident.

He appealed his convictions on three grounds: that the trial judge shifted the burden of proof, misapprehended the evidence, and erred in concluding guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied the principles of burden of proof, did not misapprehend the evidence given the strong circumstantial case, and was entitled to find the appellant's text messages constituted implied admissions.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and extortion, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, the court deducted 73 days of defence delay attributed to the late notice of the s. 11(b) application, bringing the net delay below the ceiling.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments that a conflict in the Crown's office and a change in the assigned trial judge constituted exceptional circumstances.

The application was dismissed.