Maurice J. Mattis

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.

During a trial for drug importation, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused made an initial statement in a police cruiser and a subsequent video-recorded statement at the police station.

The court found the cruiser statement involuntary due to an incomplete record and inducements offered by the officer.

Applying the derived confessions rule, the court also excluded the subsequent video statement, finding it was causally, temporally, and contextually connected to the first tainted statement.

The accused were tried before a judge alone on charges arising from a large-scale cocaine importation scheme involving approximately 112 kilograms of cocaine shipped from Guyana to Canada in a sea container.

The Crown alleged conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, relying on surveillance, intercepted communications, controlled delivery evidence, and admissions.

The court found that two of the accused knowingly participated in a conspiracy to import cocaine and later exercised possession of the drugs for trafficking purposes, based largely on circumstantial evidence and intercepted communications demonstrating knowledge, control, and shared financial interest in the shipment.

However, the court found insufficient evidence that any accused actually committed the offence of importing under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act because their involvement occurred after the drugs entered Canada.

Two accused were acquitted entirely due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge and participation.

The offender, a 33-year-old first-time offender and mother of four, acted as the getaway driver for her boyfriend in two armed robberies at bus stops.

The principal offender used an imitation firearm and received a five-year sentence.

The court considered the offender's lesser role, her lack of a criminal record, and the potential immigration consequences of her sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months' incarceration, reduced to 4 months after credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years of probation.

The offender, a 33-year-old first-time offender and single mother of four, was convicted of acting as the getaway driver in two armed robberies at bus stops.

The principal offender used an imitation firearm.

The Crown sought 2-3 years imprisonment, while the defence sought time served to avoid potential deportation consequences under the IRPA.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the serious impact on the victims, but acknowledged the offender's lesser role compared to the principal.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months incarceration, reduced to 4 months after crediting pre-sentence custody and time spent on bail with a curfew, followed by 2 years of probation.

During a trial for three robberies, the Crown sought to admit a 911 call made by a victim who was unavailable to testify.

The court found that the 911 call was made almost immediately after the robbery while the victim was still in shock, leaving no opportunity for concoction or fabrication.

The court ruled the 911 call admissible under the traditional res gestae exception to the hearsay rule, and alternatively under the principled approach to hearsay, as it met the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability.

The accused was charged with three counts of robbery for allegedly acting as the getaway driver for her boyfriend, who robbed three victims at bus shelters over the course of one evening.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including cell tower data showing the accused's phone moving in tandem with the principal offender's phone, and a victim recording the licence plate of the accused's van.

The court found the principal offender committed all three robberies.

The court acquitted the accused on the first count, finding a reasonable doubt as to whether she knew a robbery was about to occur.

However, the court convicted the accused on the second and third counts, concluding she knew of the principal's intentions by that point and intended to aid him by acting as the getaway driver.

The accused was tried on a three-count indictment alleging that she aided a series of armed robberies committed by an accomplice at bus stops over the course of a single evening.

The Crown alleged that the accused acted as the getaway driver while the accomplice robbed victims of cellular phones using a firearm.

The court relied on circumstantial evidence including cell tower records, a licence plate identified by a victim, and property from one robbery found in the accused’s vehicle.

While the court had a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the first robbery in advance, it concluded that by the time of the subsequent incidents she knew of and intended to assist the robberies.

The accused was acquitted on the first count but convicted as a party to the second and third robberies.

On a voir dire during a robbery trial, the court determined whether a police statement made by the accused was voluntary under the common law confessions rule.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to inducements, references to potential Children’s Aid Society involvement, and allegedly oppressive conditions including cold temperature and lack of medication for diabetes.

The court assessed the totality of the circumstances, including the accused’s demeanor, the recorded interview, and police testimony.

While acknowledging some inducements and pressure during the interview, the court found the accused retained an operating mind and was not subjected to oppressive conditions sufficient to overbear her will.

The Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and the statement was admitted at trial.