Martin Dionne

The Crown charged the defendant with assault causing bodily harm, possession of a firearm and ammunition, possession of controlled substances, and failure to comply with release conditions.

The Crown's case relied on DNA evidence linking the defendant to items found in a vehicle that fled the scene of a stabbing at a bar.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove all counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence regarding the assault was insufficient as the knife blade and handle were not properly linked to the incident, and there was no evidence connecting the victim identified through DNA to the person assisted by the bar owner.

The possession counts failed because DNA evidence alone, showing the defendant's profile among multiple contributors on items, could not establish possession on the date alleged.

No evidence was presented on the failure to comply counts.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendant challenged a search warrant for a safe found in a vehicle following arrests related to a stabbing.

The defendant sought to exclude evidence obtained from the safe, arguing the warrant was invalid due to an improper warrantless search incident to arrest.

The court conducted a Garofoli review to determine whether credible evidence supported the warrant's issuance.

The court found the limited flashlight inspection of the safe was reasonable as incidental to arrest and that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible evidence to support the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for a ruling on standing to challenge the search of a safe found in a vehicle following an altercation at a bar.

The defendant sought to challenge both the search warrant for the safe and alleged violations of the vehicle owner's rights during her arrest and vehicle search.

The court found that the defendant had standing to challenge the search warrant based on the Crown's theory that items in the safe were in the defendant's possession, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in R v Jones.

However, the court found the defendant lacked standing to challenge alleged violations of the vehicle owner's rights, as the defendant had no privacy or property interest in the vehicle.

The accused was charged with impaired operation contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

A constable located the accused's parked vehicle in a plaza and spoke with the accused, who stated she was too drunk to drive and had called for a pickup.

The Crown conceded that operation could not be proven as there was no evidence of movement.

The Crown sought to proceed on the included offence of care or control based on the accused's statements and observations of impairment.

The court found the accused's roadside statements inadmissible as conscripted admissions obtained from a detained person without proper Charter warnings.

Without the statements, the remaining evidence was insufficient to prove impairment.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant, Ari Da Costa, brought a mistrial application during his jury trial for first-degree murder, arguing that his right to a fair trial was irreparably compromised due to an eleventh-hour change in opinion by a key Crown forensic psychiatrist, Dr. Klassen.

Dr. Klassen, initially a Crown witness who did not support an NCR defence, provisionally changed his diagnosis to schizophrenia after reviewing extensive new records.

The court found that this significant change in expert opinion, coupled with the necessity of a lengthy adjournment to allow Dr. Klassen to finalize his report, would unduly prejudice the defendant by making it impossible for the jury to retain the nuances of the defence expert testimony.

The court granted the mistrial application, emphasizing the paramount importance of a fundamentally fair trial.

The accused was convicted of multiple offences arising from two separate incidents involving domestic violence.

In Hamilton, the accused held a knife toward his pregnant girlfriend, threatening to kill her and their unborn child, and assaulted a pregnant witness.

In Aurora, the accused spat in the face of his ex-girlfriend, threatened to kill her, and damaged her vehicle.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 180 days with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 6 days to be served, followed by 2 years of probation with strict conditions including anger management and PARS counselling, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and DNA registration.

The accused was charged with eight offences arising from a troubled seven-year on-and-off relationship with the complainant, with whom he had two children.

The charges included assault with a weapon, threatening to cause death, break and enter, sexual assault, and mischief occurring in Hamilton (2012), Richmond Hill (January 2017), and Aurora (February 2017).

The central issue was credibility.

The court found the accused was not a credible witness, with his evidence contradicted by credible external evidence and the testimony of a corroborating witness.

The complainant and corroborating witness were found to be credible and reliable on most counts.

The accused was convicted on six counts but acquitted on the break and enter and sexual assault charges due to reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence on those specific allegations.

The Crown applied for a ruling on the voluntariness of a statement made by the self-represented accused to a homicide investigator.

The accused, charged with the first-degree murder of his father, argued he lacked an operating mind during the interview due to mental health issues.

The court applied the Oickle and Whittle tests, finding that the accused understood what he was saying, knew he was speaking to a police officer, and appreciated the potential consequences.

The court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, not the result of threats, promises, or trickery, and ruled it admissible in its entirety.

A police sergeant was charged with assault causing bodily harm after using force to arrest a highly intoxicated individual with a lengthy criminal history and known propensity for violence.

The sergeant employed a "grounding" technique that resulted in the arrestee's face striking the ground, causing a laceration to the cheek.

The court found that while the sergeant had reasonable grounds to arrest and was entitled to use necessary force, the force employed was unnecessary, disproportionate, and unlawful.

The arrestee had become compliant before the sergeant applied force, and the sergeant's stated justifications for the use of force were contradicted by video evidence.

The court convicted the sergeant of assault causing bodily harm, finding that the injury met the statutory threshold for bodily harm.

The defendant, having been convicted of dangerous driving causing death, brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The court found that the defendant had explicitly waived his section 11(b) rights regarding pre-trial delay during a judicial pretrial.

Furthermore, the court held that the presumptive ceiling established in Jordan applies from charge to verdict, not to the sentencing phase, which remains governed by MacDougall.

The net delay of 27 months and 21 days fell below the 30-month ceiling, and the defence failed to demonstrate that the delay was otherwise unreasonable.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant, Rakesh Patel, was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death after hitting a seven-year-old girl on her bicycle in a crosswalk.

The court found that Patel drove through a red light due to substantial inattentiveness and distraction, which constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable prudent driver.

Despite arguments that his actions were a momentary lapse due to stress, the court concluded that his prolonged inattention over 9-10 seconds, covering a significant distance, merited criminal fault.

Patel was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a roadside stop initiated by a citizen complaint about erratic driving.

A constable made an Approved Screening Device demand based on observations including the accused's glassy eyes, presence of beer in the vehicle, erratic driving report, and the accused's persistent smoking despite police instruction to stop.

The sole issue at trial was whether the officer had the required reasonable suspicion under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code to make the demand.

The court found that the totality of circumstances provided an objectively reasonable basis for the officer's suspicion and that the demand was lawful.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with human trafficking, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, and possession of stolen property arising from his involvement in a sex trafficking operation in York Region.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a former university student who entered the sex trade.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including numerous internal contradictions, evasive demeanor, and inconsistencies between her trial testimony and her police statement.

The accused did not testify but made a voluntary statement to police.

The court convicted the accused on one count of possession of stolen property (the complainant's cellphone) but acquitted on all other counts, finding the Crown had failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with eight offences including two counts of sexual assault and four counts of exploitation via compelled prostitution.

The Crown sought to admit a PDF book entitled "Pimpology — The 48 Laws of the Game" recovered from the accused's laptop.

The defence opposed admission on grounds of minimal probative value and significant prejudicial impact.

The court found the book to be relevant circumstantial evidence supporting the complainant's credibility and weighing against the accused's statements denying involvement in human trafficking.

The court admitted the evidence, finding that probative value outweighed potential prejudice.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving a child victim between the ages of 11 and 14 over a period of approximately two years.

The trial judge found the accused guilty based on the credible evidence of the complainant and corroborating witness testimony.

The sexual interference charge was conditionally stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was sentenced to five years imprisonment for sexual assault with eight months concurrent for invitation to sexual touching, less eight months pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of four years and four months.

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling, lifetime reporting under SOIRA, a lifetime prohibition order under section 161, a contact prohibition, and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while disqualified from doing so contrary to section 549(5) of the Criminal Code.

The accused had been convicted of refusing to provide a breath sample in 2011 and was subject to driving restrictions including an ignition interlock requirement under the Highway Traffic Act.

The accused operated a dump truck without the required interlock device installed.

The defence conceded the Crown proved the actus reus but argued the Crown had not proven mens rea, claiming the accused was unaware of the interlock requirement over a year after his conviction.

The court found the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and entered a finding of guilt.

The defendant was charged with four counts of sexual offences against a complainant who was between 11 and 13 years old between 1993 and 1995, when the defendant was between 25 and 27 years old.

The charges included sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defence conceded that no consent defence under section 150.1 of the Criminal Code applied.

The trial turned on credibility and the burden of proof.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness whose testimony was corroborated by her friend's observations and attendance at the defendant's home.

The defendant's evidence was rejected as lacking credibility due to inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The Crown stayed one charge at the conclusion of trial.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defendant was charged with four counts of sexual offences against a girl aged 11 to 13 years old between 1993 and 1995.

The Crown alleged a pattern of sexual abuse including sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defendant denied all allegations, claiming he was merely a "big brother" figure to the children in the household.

The court found the complainant credible and her testimony corroborated by a former friend who witnessed inappropriate physical contact and the defendant and complainant's secretive behaviour.

The defendant's evidence was rejected due to significant credibility issues, including his admitted heavy drug use, his demonstrated capacity for secretive relationships, and his implausible denials regarding the complainant's expressed feelings.

The court convicted the defendant on three of four counts.

The accused was charged with domestic assault and unlawful confinement arising from an incident on September 15, 2011 involving his wife.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, whose credibility and reliability were significantly undermined during cross-examination.

The accused's testimony was also found to be unconvincing.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused was charged with assault and two counts of threatening following an altercation with his sister at the family home.

The complainant alleged that after an argument over a cell phone, the accused struck her and pushed her down the stairs.

The accused testified that his sister was the aggressor, striking their mother, and that he only separated them without striking anyone.

The court found serious discrepancies in the complainant's evidence, including her failure to mention being pushed down stairs to police and inconsistencies regarding an alleged arranged marriage.

The photographic evidence showed more serious injuries to the accused and his mother than to the complainant, supporting the defence narrative.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges.