Mark R. Miller

The offender pleaded guilty to importing 2.67 kg of cocaine.

Prior to sentencing, she developed an aggressive form of optic neuritis, leaving her nearly blind and requiring immediate, specialized hospital treatment during unpredictable relapses to prevent total vision loss.

The court found that provincial and federal correctional facilities could not guarantee the timely emergency medical intervention she required, creating a real risk of complete blindness if incarcerated.

Finding that a penitentiary sentence would be disproportionately harsh due to this medical hardship, the court departed from the usual 6-to-8-year range and imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day.

The accused, Craig Grant, faced six counts related to the possession of a firearm, an extended magazine, and ammunition, following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The sole issue at trial was possession, which the Crown sought to prove through circumstantial evidence.

The defence proposed an alternative theory, suggesting another individual present in the residence could have quickly placed the items in the accused's satchel and nightstand upon police entry.

The court found the accused's testimony to be incredible and unreliable.

After assessing the circumstantial evidence and the defence's alternative theory, the court found the defence's explanation implausible due to insufficient time for the alleged actions to occur during the police entry.

Consequently, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was in possession of the seized items and found him guilty on all counts.

The applicant challenged the issuance of a search warrant and his subsequent arrest, arguing violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to a lack of reasonable and probable grounds.

The application sought to exclude seized evidence, including a handgun, cocaine, and currency, under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant, applying principles of warrant review, and found that the authorizing justice had reasonable and probable grounds to believe evidence of drug-related offenses would be found at the specified address.

The court concluded that the observed interactions were consistent with drug transactions and that the applicant's connection to the address supported the probability of finding evidence.

Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no Charter violations were found.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of statements made by the accused, Viraphone Savina Ackharath and Alea Sabira Baksh, who are charged with importing and conspiracy to import a controlled substance.

Ackharath challenged the admissibility of her statements, arguing a violation of her s. 9 Charter rights due to an arbitrary arrest without reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that the Border Services Officer had objective reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, considering factors such as the accused being a travelling companion of someone arrested for smuggling, their origin from a known source country for controlled substances, and being flagged for secondary inspection.

Consequently, no s. 9 Charter breach was found.

Furthermore, the court determined that even if a breach had occurred, the admission of the statements would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter, given the non-serious nature of any potential breach and the minimal impact on the accused's rights, particularly as she was immediately advised of and given access to counsel.

The Crown's application for the admissibility of all statements was granted.

The accused was stopped for suspected impaired driving.

The officer determined he was not impaired but was driving with a suspended license.

The officer decided to tow the vehicle and conducted a warrantless inventory search pursuant to police policy, discovering drugs and a weapon.

The accused was arrested and a further search of the trunk revealed a sawed-off shotgun.

The accused invoked his right to counsel of choice, but police made inadequate efforts to contact the lawyer, questioned the accused, and directed him to duty counsel.

The court found serious violations of the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding that admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the systemic and serious nature of the police misconduct.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a motor vehicle stop.

The Crown alleged the defendant possessed 40 grams of cocaine found in a vehicle he owned and was operating.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the vehicle search under the Charter and argued there was reasonable doubt as to his possession of the drugs.

The court found the vehicle search was lawful as a search incident to arrest and under the Highway Traffic Act inventory search provisions.

However, on the merits, the court found the Crown had not proven possession beyond a reasonable doubt, as the drugs were located in an area accessible to the passenger, there was no evidence of knowledge or control by the defendant, and no other indicia of drug trafficking were present.

The defendant was acquitted.

The offender pled guilty to possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking after operating an illegal storefront dispensary.

The Crown sought a $5,000 fine, while the offender sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing, noting the offender's positive background and the changing social attitudes towards marihuana.

However, the court found that a discharge would be contrary to the public interest given the commercial nature of the operation and the need for general deterrence.

A fine of $5,000 was imposed.

Jacek Mucha pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He was already serving a seven-year sentence for a related conspiracy to traffic cocaine in Halifax.

The Crown sought a two-year consecutive sentence, while the Defence sought a two-year concurrent sentence.

The court adopted a three-step process for sentencing, determining the appropriate length, then whether it should be consecutive or concurrent, and finally applying the totality principle if consecutive.

The court found a two-year sentence fit and ordered it to run concurrently with the existing Halifax sentence, citing a sufficiently close connection between the two offences due to overlapping locations, dates, substance, and police investigations.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, a Secondary DNA Order, and forfeiture of seized cash.

The accused was charged with multiple Criminal Code offences including uttering threats, assault, assault with a weapon, forcible confinement, sexual assault with a weapon, mischief, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, making child pornography, and voyeurism.

He was also charged with Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences including trafficking cocaine, production of marijuana, possession of marijuana for trafficking, and possession of cocaine.

The trial hinged on the credibility of the complainant and a second witness.

The court found both witnesses to be unreliable, manipulative, and not credible.

The accused testified that the activities were consensual BDSM play.

The court acquitted the accused of all Criminal Code charges and found him guilty of possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana (as a lesser included offence to trafficking), but not guilty of trafficking cocaine or production of marijuana.

The accused was tried for assault following an incident observed by an independent witness driving a truck.

The witness testified to seeing the accused repeatedly strike the female passenger and place her in a headlock while driving.

The complainant, who was the accused's girlfriend, denied the assault occurred, claiming they were merely 'play fighting'.

The court found the independent witness credible and reliable, rejected the complainant's evidence due to inconsistencies and a clear power imbalance, and found the accused guilty of assault.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless entry and search of his residence, arguing his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights were violated.

Police had entered the home without a warrant after receiving a 911 call from a witness who observed a man assaulting a woman in a vehicle that was later located in the applicant's driveway.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, but the warrantless entry was justified under the common law exigent circumstances doctrine due to concerns for the woman's safety.

The court also held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant and that drugs found in the basement were lawfully seized in plain view.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with trafficking cocaine, possessing cocaine, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing cash obtained through criminal activity.

The defendant elected trial in Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown relied on surveillance evidence and a search warrant executed at the defendant's residence.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 regarding the validity of the search warrant and the arrest.

The court found the Information to Obtain was full, fair, and frank, the police observations were consistent with drug trafficking, and the warrantless entries into the common areas of the residential building were authorized by property management.

The Charter application was dismissed and the defendant was found guilty on all four counts.

During a trial for break and enter, assault, and threatening bodily harm, the complainant testified that he did not recall the events or being assaulted.

The Crown brought an application to adduce the complainant's 911 call into evidence.

The court ruled the 911 call admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, finding it was made contemporaneously with the events while the caller was under ongoing emotional stress.

Alternatively, the court found the call admissible for the threatening charge under the principled approach to hearsay, as it met the criteria for necessity and threshold reliability.

The defendant was charged with trafficking cocaine following surveillance by Halton Regional Police.

Officers observed the defendant meet with another individual in a rural area, during which the other person reached his hands into the defendant's vehicle.

Cocaine was subsequently found in the other person's vehicle and cash was found in the defendant's possession.

The defendant argued the evidence was circumstantial and that an innocent explanation existed—that the two men were lost and discussing directions.

The court found that the inference of guilt was the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence and convicted the defendant.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and pointing a firearm after a confrontation with another individual in a fast‑food drive‑through.

Evidence showed the accused possessed a pellet pistol capable of discharging projectiles at velocities exceeding the threshold for serious bodily harm.

Applying the W.(D.) credibility framework, the court rejected the accused’s denial that he pointed the gun.

However, the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused committed an assault or possessed the weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The court held that a pellet gun may constitute a firearm for Criminal Code offences even if it is not operational at the moment due to an empty compressed air cylinder.

The accused was charged with uttering threats, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon against his estranged wife, as well as breaching probation orders.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's testimony as fabrication.

The court found that the accused physically assaulted the complainant, threatened her and her friend with a knife, and subsequently sexually assaulted her.

The accused was found guilty of uttering threats, assault, and the lesser included offence of sexual assault, as the knife was not used during the sexual assault itself.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon following an incident on March 6, 2011.

The accused pled guilty to two counts of breach of probation and not guilty to the remaining four counts.

After a trial spanning multiple dates, the court found the accused guilty of uttering threats to cause death to the complainant and a third party, assault, and sexual assault (as a lesser included offence, not sexual assault with a weapon).

The decision reflects a pattern of domestic violence within a long-term relationship marked by substance abuse and repeated breaches of court orders.