Maurice J. Mattis

The Crown brought a motion to admit "recognition" evidence from the accused's former girlfriend, Dejaunte Blake, to identify the accused in surveillance video related to a first-degree murder charge.

The defence opposed, arguing the relationship was not significant enough and the video quality was poor.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. Leaney, found the witness was in a better position than the jury to identify the accused due to her intimate and regular contact with him.

The court admitted the evidence, ruling that concerns about video quality and prior inconsistent statements went to weight, not admissibility.

In a first-degree murder trial, the court ruled on the admissibility of three wiretap excerpts, balancing their probative value against their prejudicial effect.

Two excerpts were excluded: one lacked sufficient link to the killing and carried significant prejudice by associating the accused with incarcerated individuals, and the other lacked probative value regarding a potential getaway vehicle or the shooting itself.

The third excerpt, which involved the accused discussing a homicide and police inquiries with his girlfriend, was admitted as highly probative of post-incident conduct related to his involvement in the shooting.

The Crown brought an application during a first-degree murder trial to determine the voluntariness of two statements made by the accused to police.

The first statement was made to patrol officers investigating a trespass complaint prior to the murder, and the second was a six-hour interview following the accused's arrest by a tactical unit.

The court applied the Oickle framework and found no evidence of inducements, oppression, lack of an operating mind, or police trickery.

Both statements were ruled voluntary, with the first admissible in the Crown's case in chief and the second admissible for cross-examination.

The Crown sought to admit "recognition evidence" from a hotel customer service representative to identify the accused in surveillance video related to a first-degree murder charge.

The defence opposed, arguing the witness lacked sufficient exposure to the accused.

The court dismissed the Crown's motion, finding that the witness's limited prior interactions with the accused, reliance on a short, obscured video clip, and identification based on clothing and gait (rather than facial features or consistent observation of gait on stairs) did not place her in a better position than the trier of fact to identify the accused.

The accused brought pre-trial applications alleging racial profiling by police, breach of his right to counsel, and seeking to quash a search warrant for his vehicle.

The accused also sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant.

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine the affiant, finding no reasonable likelihood it would assist in challenging the warrant.

The court rejected the accused's evidence entirely, finding the police officer recognized the accused from a recent shooting investigation and did not engage in racial profiling when running his license plate.

The court found the accused was properly provided his right to counsel and that the search warrant was validly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of assault causing bodily harm following an unprovoked group attack at a transit station.

The Crown sought 6 to 9 months of incarceration, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court emphasized the principle of restraint and the strong prospects for the offender's rehabilitation, noting his lack of a criminal record, supportive family, and full-time employment.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of probation, along with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with possession of a restricted firearm, ammunition, and heroin for the purpose of trafficking after police executed a search warrant at his apartment based on information from a confidential informer.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant under s. 8 of the Charter, arguing the redacted Information to Obtain lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the warrant validly issued and holding that the evidence would not have been excluded under s. 24(2) regardless.

On the substantive charges, the court found the accused had knowledge and control of the lockbox containing the firearm and drugs, and convicted him of those offences.

The court also found the accused guilty of simple possession of a small amount of heroin found in the police cruiser after his arrest.

The applicant was unsuccessful in her motions and the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court found that the applicant had misappropriated funds contrary to a consent order and attempted to cover it up, which precipitated the motions.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the amounts at $24,817.63 for the family law proceeding and $29,443.41 for the civil proceeding.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the action as statute-barred, arguing the two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiffs contended that the discovery date of their claims, involving allegations of breach of contract and misappropriation of partnership assets, was later than asserted by the defendants, or that the precise date of discovery required a trial.

The court found a genuine issue requiring a trial, particularly regarding the credibility of conflicting accounts about when the plaintiffs became aware of the full extent of their claims, including the disputed receipt of a critical letter.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in an action for breach of contract regarding the assignment of an interest in a sports agency corporation.

The defendant conceded the breach and the amount owing but argued he was not personally liable, asserting he contracted on behalf of his corporation.

The court applied the principle that a party wishing to benefit from the corporate veil must make it clear they are contracting on behalf of a corporation.

Finding the contract unambiguous and signed by the defendant personally, the court held the defendant personally liable and granted judgment for the outstanding balance of USD $927,535.51.

The accused was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following an altercation outside a bar where he slashed the victim's hand with a machete.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought eighteen months.

The court sentenced the accused to two years less a day in custody, minus credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the use of weapons.

The accused, charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation outside a bar, brought an application to have the defence of self-defence put to the jury.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it lacked an evidential foundation.

The trial judge reviewed the testimony and surveillance video, which showed the accused chasing the victims and attacking them with a machete after the initial threat had subsided.

The court found that even if the accused had a subjective belief and defensive purpose, his responsive acts were not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The application was dismissed as there was no air of reality to the defence.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a sobriety checkpoint stop on February 14, 2017.

The defendant challenged the timing of the stop, the administration of the breath demand, and the timing of the breath tests relative to the two-hour statutory requirement.

The defendant testified that he was stopped at 2:15 pm and waited 15 minutes in line, placing the first breath test outside the two-hour window.

The officer testified that the stop occurred at 3:08 pm, placing the first test within the statutory timeframe.

The court found the defendant's evidence unreliable and untrustworthy, particularly regarding his claim of consuming only two beers when his blood alcohol content was almost twice the legal limit.

The court rejected all of the defendant's challenges and found him guilty as charged.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence, arguing that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's credibility findings were entitled to deference and were properly reasoned.

The trial judge had provided ample justification for accepting the complainant's evidence and properly assessed conflicting testimony.

The court found no differential standard of scrutiny was applied to defence evidence and that the trial judge properly cautioned himself against treating the case as merely a credibility test.

The applicant, charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking, applied for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 53.5 months.

Applying the Jordan framework, the court deducted defence-waived and defence-caused delays, bringing the net delay just under the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found the applicant failed to show the delay was unreasonable or that he took meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings.

Furthermore, as a transitional case, the parties' reasonable reliance on the previous law justified the delay.

The application was dismissed.

At a preliminary hearing, the Crown sought committal of the defendant on four Criminal Code offences relating to possession of a non-restricted firearm (Remington 870 Magnum shotgun) and two breaches of judicial interim release.

The firearm was discovered during a search warrant execution at a townhouse residence.

The defendant was observed entering and leaving the residence multiple times over two consecutive days prior to the search.

The Crown argued the defendant exercised control over the residence and could reasonably be inferred to have knowledge of and control over the firearm found hidden under a bed in another occupant's bedroom.

The preliminary hearing justice found insufficient evidence to establish the defendant's possession of the firearm and discharged the defendant on all counts, finding too many evidentiary gaps to reasonably infer knowledge of and control over the concealed weapon.

A costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning a father's access to a 13-year-old child, custody incidents, and child support.

The mother was substantially successful on all issues.

The father was ordered to pay child support of $160 per month retroactive to April 1, 2015, based on imputed income of $20,000, and $2,700 towards retroactive special expenses.

The mother was granted the ability to travel with the child outside Canada without the father's consent.

Access was to be in accordance with the child's wishes.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $10,000, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, finding the father acted unreasonably throughout the proceedings.

This is a preliminary inquiry judgment determining whether sufficient evidence exists to commit the accused to trial on firearm-related offences.

The Crown charged both accused with ten joint firearm offences, with the accused Taitt facing two additional charges of criminal negligence.

The court applied the established test for preliminary inquiries, examining whether there is any admissible evidence capable of supporting each essential element of the offences.

The court committed both accused to trial on counts involving possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and being occupants of a motor vehicle knowing a firearm was present.

The court discharged both accused on counts alleging discharge of a firearm with intent to wound specific individuals, finding insufficient evidence of the specific intent required.

The court committed only Taitt to trial on the criminal negligence charge.

Following a guilty plea to aggravated assault, a Gardiner hearing was conducted to determine disputed aggravating facts for sentencing.

The Crown alleged forcible removal of clothing, choking, and blows to the ribs.

The court found that the forcible removal of the victim's pants and shoes was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the allegations of choking and blows to the ribs were not proven to the requisite degree due to reasonable doubt and unreliability in the victim's account.

The defendant, Carol Andrea Gilmore, was found guilty by a jury of importing 217 grams of cocaine into Canada.

This was her third conviction for drug importation, in addition to other drug-related offenses and breaches of court orders.

The court considered the serious impact of drug importation on society, the principles of sentencing, and relevant case law on sentencing ranges for cocaine importation.

Despite the relatively small quantity of cocaine, the defendant's extensive criminal record, lack of genuine remorse, and history as a repeat drug courier were significant aggravating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 4 years imprisonment, which, after credit for pre-sentence custody, resulted in 31.5 months in custody, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition order.