Meiszko Wlodarczyk

Following findings of guilt for uttering threats, the accused sought to bring an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court previously declined to hear the application because it was not brought proactively before the end of the trial.

The accused requested a reconsideration based on a recent appellate decision confirming that a trial judge is not functus officio to hear such applications before sentencing.

The court dismissed the request, holding that while it had jurisdiction, the application was properly declined due to the accused's failure to raise the delay issue in a timely manner as required by the Jordan framework.

Following findings of guilt on two counts of uttering threats, the defendant sought to schedule a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The court declined to hear the application, holding that the defendant failed to comply with her duty to raise delay proactively and in a timely manner, having made a tactical decision to await the trial outcome before pursuing the application, contrary to the principles established in R. v. J.F. and R. v. MacLaughlin.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm to her son and threatening to burn her daughter-in-law's business property.

Both threats arose from a single voicemail message left on August 25, 2023, following the accused's exclusion from her other son's funeral.

The accused admitted leaving the voicemail.

The defence argued the language was figurative, referring to civil litigation rather than literal threats.

The court found that a reasonable person would perceive the voicemail as containing threats of physical harm and property damage, and that the accused subjectively intended to intimidate and be taken seriously.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for causing a disturbance and related offences.

The accused, diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and substance use disorder, has a history of decompensating and becoming aggressive when using cannabis.

The Board accepted the expert evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused lacks insight into the effects of his cannabis use and remains caught in a cycle of losing privileges due to substance use.

The Board found the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of his detention at the hospital with a minor modification to his privileges.

The Ontario Review Board held a mandatory annual review hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and breach of probation.

The accused, who has bipolar disorder and substance use disorders, had previously been readmitted to the hospital after unilaterally stopping his antipsychotic medication.

However, he subsequently stabilized, gained insight into his need for medication, and maintained abstinence from substances.

The Board accepted the joint recommendation of the parties, finding that while the accused remains a significant threat to public safety, a conditional discharge is the necessary and appropriate disposition.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review and a restriction of liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault.

The accused, diagnosed with schizophrenia, had his liberty restricted after failing to take his medication, requiring hospitalization to re-titrate his clozapine dosage.

The Board found that the accused continues to represent a significant threat to the safety of the public and ordered a continued Detention Disposition.

The Board also found that the hospital's restriction of the accused's liberty was warranted, necessary, and appropriate.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for the accused, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity on a charge of sexual assault.

The accused has schizophrenia and a history of physical aggression, though his mobility has recently declined.

The Board accepted the unanimous opinion of the treatment team that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to cyclical psychotic symptoms.

The Board ordered a continuation of the Detention Disposition at the North Bay Regional Health Centre to provide necessary support and supervision, while maintaining conditions to assist with future placement in a nursing home.

On a pre-trial Charter application, the accused sought exclusion of police photographs of text messages taken from the complainant's phone with her consent.

The court held that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in texts exchanged during the parties' romantic relationship, but not in texts exchanged after the relationship ended in which the complainant accused him of rape.

Photographing the relationship texts constituted at least a search, and the complainant's consent could not authorize a third-party waiver of the accused's s. 8 rights, making the warrantless search unreasonable.

Applying s. 24(2), the court declined to exclude the evidence because the police conduct was inadvertent, the privacy impact was minimal given the complainant could testify to the texts, and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits was high.

This sentencing decision concerns Corey Fulford, found guilty of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a 12-month carceral sentence, while the defence proposed a 3-6 month conditional sentence.

The court, considering the offender's developmental delay, lack of prior record, remorse, and the lower end of the physical conduct spectrum for the offence, determined that a conditional sentence was appropriate despite the gravity of child sexual assault.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 18 months of probation, along with mandatory Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance, a 10-year firearm prohibition, and a 5-year order prohibiting contact with persons under 16.

Corey Fulford was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving a 10-year-old complainant.

The trial involved conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused, who has a learning disability.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, concluding that the "cuddling" on the bed, which occurred after a kiss and while the accused was aroused, constituted a sexual assault, as the relationship was not familial.

The accused was acquitted of sexual interference, as the alleged hand touching was not found to be for a sexual purpose.

S.S. was convicted of multiple offences, including sexual assault, and the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation.

S.S. applied to re-open the trial and for habeas corpus based on a recanting affidavit from the complainant.

The court applied the rigorous test for re-opening a defence case after conviction, focusing on the cogency of the new evidence.

The complainant testified that she signed the affidavit under pressure and that its contents were largely untrue, reaffirming her trial evidence.

The court found the recantation lacked sufficient cogency to warrant re-opening the trial, as the complainant's credibility was already thoroughly assessed at trial and there was corroborating evidence.

The applications were dismissed.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of an impaired driving charge against the respondent.

The trial judge had dismissed the charge on the basis that the Crown failed to prove the identity of the offender because there was no in-court dock identification.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by concluding the identification evidence was insufficient.

The uncontroverted circumstantial evidence, including the arresting officer's lifelong knowledge of the respondent and the signing of a Promise to Appear, was sufficient to prove identity.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.