Marquis S. V. Felix

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault of his newborn child after the child presented with subdural and retinal hemorrhages.

The Crown relied on expert medical evidence concluding the injuries were highly concerning for inflicted injury, based partly on hearsay accounts of the defendant forcefully rocking the child.

The court found the factual foundation for the expert's opinion on the mechanism of injury was not proven at trial and noted the expert was not provided the defendant's video statement.

Applying the W.(D.) framework to the defendant's exculpatory police statement, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the requisite intent for assault.

The defendant was acquitted.

The appellant, Peter Dimakos, appealed the dismissal of his s.11(b) Charter application related to allegations under the Building Code Act.

The Ontario Court of Justice upheld the trial justice’s decision that the application was not properly before the court due to failure to properly serve the Attorney General, emphasizing the mandatory nature of proper service.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial justice’s procedural ruling and declined to order a new trial under s.120(1) of the Provincial Offences Act despite acknowledging alternative procedural approaches.

The defendant was charged with two counts of assault and two counts of assault by choking involving his intimate partner.

The complainant testified to physical altercations occurring in May and July of 2023, while the defendant denied any physical contact.

Although the trial judge found the complainant credible, the defendant's testimony was also found to be somewhat credible and reliable.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the evidence left a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant of all charges.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample.

He brought a Charter application alleging that his rights were violated because the police failed to accommodate his Mandarin language barrier.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the police responded reasonably to the defendant's language needs and that he understood the proceedings.

At trial, the court found the defendant guilty of both charges, concluding that he was the driver of the vehicle and that his failure to provide a breath sample was a wilful and deliberate obstruction.

This appeal concerns procedural fairness and the application of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of a zoning by-law breach trial.

The appellant challenged the trial justice of the peace's summary dismissal of an unfiled s. 11(b) application, arguing that the trial court erred by not allowing submissions and by accepting COVID-19 as an exceptional circumstance justifying delay.

The court held that no formal s. 11(b) application was before the court as it was neither filed nor served, and thus the trial justice did not err in refusing to hear or summarily dismiss the application.

The court approved a bifurcated approach, deferring the ineffective assistance of counsel issue to a later stage.

The defendant, Ephraim Mohlala, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the defendant.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found the complainant generally truthful but with several reliability concerns and one credibility concern, particularly regarding inconsistencies and omissions in her statements about the incident, alcohol consumption, and injuries.

While the court did not entirely believe the defendant's denial of sexual contact, it found that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, coupled with the burden of proof on the prosecution, left the court in a state of reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, break and enter, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house after breaking into a stranger's apartment and sexually assaulting her.

The accused claimed he was in a dissociative state due to bereavement, lack of sleep, lack of food, and alcohol consumption, leading him to mistakenly believe he was in his childhood home in Casablanca with his fiancée.

The court emphatically rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and implausible.

The court found no air of reality to the mistake of fact defence, noting that self-induced intoxication short of automatism is not a defence to general intent crimes like sexual assault.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences.

He admitted to trafficking cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime, and cocaine for trafficking.

The contested charges were possession of a firearm and possession of fentanyl for trafficking.

The court found the defendant guilty of the firearm charges, rejecting his explanation that the firearm belonged to another individual, Bogdan, due to inconsistencies in his testimony and strong circumstantial evidence (defendant's bank card and personal ornaments found with the firearm).

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the fentanyl charge, finding reasonable doubt due to weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence regarding the location and association of the fentanyl with the defendant's documents, despite the defendant's impaired credibility.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the defendant operating his vehicle where cocaine was found in the centre console.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and constructive possession, emphasizing that vehicle ownership does not create a presumption of knowledge or possession.

Due to numerous gaps in the prosecution's evidence, including lack of forensic links, inconsistent vehicle control, and insufficient investigation into other potential users, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's knowledge and control of the cocaine.

The defendant was acquitted.

This judgment at trial addresses criminal charges against the defendant, Maxim Dorofeev, for incidents on November 7, 2022 (assault, choking, unlawful confinement) and August 25, 2022 (assault).

The court found the defendant guilty of assault and choking under s.267(c) of the Criminal Code for the November 7 incident, ordering a conditional stay for the simple assault count from the same date.

The defendant was acquitted of unlawful confinement for November 7 and assault for August 25.

The court's decision involved a detailed assessment of witness credibility and reliability, particularly concerning the complainant's and defendant's conflicting accounts, and the corroborative value of independent witness testimony and physical evidence.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, and obstructing justice, in addition to two other fail to comply counts to which he pleaded guilty.

The central issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant inconsistencies, delayed disclosure linked to civil proceedings, an uncooperative demeanor regarding photographic evidence, and the implausible calm demeanor of the children immediately after the alleged assault.

Discrepancies between the complainant's account and the neighbour's testimony and audio recording further contributed to the court's doubt.

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault causing bodily harm, assault, and forcible confinement.

The central issue was consent, with conflicting testimony from the complainant and the defendant.

The court found the complainant generally credible but noted issues with her testimony regarding intoxication and the sequence of events.

While the defendant's character was poor, his testimony on consent was clear and precise.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent for sexual assault and the elements of assault and forcible confinement.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted on all counts.

Deborah Omolade Oguntoyinbo pleaded guilty to numerous fraud-related charges and breaches of release orders spanning several years.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 years imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of 18-24 months.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, citing the defendant's extensive criminal record of over seventy prior convictions (predominantly fraud-related), her persistent and flagrant breaches of release conditions (including cutting off a GPS monitor), and a lack of demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

Emphasizing specific deterrence and denunciation, the judge imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, along with significant restitution orders totaling over $86,000 to multiple victims who suffered financial and personal harm, including new Canadians and small business owners.

The court also granted credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh custodial conditions.

The defendant, Carlos Galeano, brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) by police during a traffic stop and subsequent vehicle search under the Cannabis Control Act (CCA), and delayed access to counsel.

The court found that while the initial traffic stop and grounds for a CCA search were valid, the search itself was conducted in an unreasonable and overbroad manner, exceeding the statutory authority.

Furthermore, police failed to facilitate access to counsel at the scene and during a lengthy delay at the police station.

Consequently, the court found breaches of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter and ordered the exclusion of all seized evidence and statements under s. 24(2).

The youthful first-time offender was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and related offences after a loaded handgun was found in his waistband during a vehicle search.

The Crown sought 3 to 3.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court rejected the defence's characterization of the offence as regulatory, finding it fell on the 'true crime' spectrum.

After considering mitigating factors including youth, remorse, and stringent bail conditions, as well as the impact of anti-Black racism and potential immigration consequences, the court imposed a sentence of 2 years and 10 months (1,030 days) in custody, reduced to 856 days after pre-sentence and bail credits.

The defendant, Rapinder Bains, applied for a stay of proceedings based on entrapment, arguing that police investigator DC Khan lacked reasonable suspicion when providing an opportunity to commit a drug trafficking offence.

The court found that DC Khan possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion, supported by a confidential human source (CHS) tip and prior text communications indicating drug trafficking activity associated with the target phone number.

The court emphasized that the defendant's unsolicited communication initiated the interaction and that the case did not involve random virtue-testing.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused physician was charged with one count of sexual assault against a patient.

The complainant alleged the accused inserted his hand into her vagina without consent following a medical examination.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, including inconsistent statements about how she obtained newspaper articles about the accused, a refusal to answer questions during cross-examination, and the unavailability of her personal notes.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court concluded the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The defendant was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, along with multiple breaches of weapons prohibition and probation orders.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the prevalence of illegal handguns in the Toronto area.

The defendant was sentenced to 4.5 years for the firearm offence, with additional consecutive sentences for the breaches, resulting in a total sentence of approximately 5 years before applying pre-sentence and COVID-19 credits.

The defendant, Aleksandr Shaporov, was found guilty of possessing and accessing child pornography following an international investigation into the "Welcome to Video" (W2V) website, a child pornography platform on the Dark Web.

The prosecution presented extensive electronic evidence, including Bitcoin transactions from the defendant's Coinbase account to W2V, and downloaded child pornography files found on his computer.

The defence argued that a third party, a roommate named Roman, was responsible and that the police investigation was deficient.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony as incredible and unreliable, finding that the electronic evidence overwhelmingly established his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant, a club promoter, was charged with multiple counts of sexual interference and sexual assault involving two underage complainants.

The central issues at trial were the credibility of the witnesses, the defendant's assertion of the mistake of age defence for the sexual interference charges, and the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent for the sexual assault charges.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence, finding he was wilfully blind or reckless regarding the complainants' ages and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain their ages.

The court also rejected the defence of mistaken belief in consent, finding the defendant engaged in sexual acts without the complainants' consent.

The defendant was found guilty on all counts.