Melina Macchia

The defence applied to re-open and re-consider an earlier ruling that admitted a Super 8 video from the day before an alleged murder.

The defence offered admissions of fact under Section 650 of the Criminal Code to obviate the need for the video.

The Crown opposed.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the video's unique visual probative value, particularly in demonstrating the accused's familiarity with the firearm and concerted action, extended beyond the offered admissions and justified any additional prejudicial effect.

The defendants were convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.

This decision sets their parole ineligibility periods.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the use of a semi-automatic assault rifle, the public nature of the killing, elements of planning, and the criminal record of one offender, as well as prior criminal conduct involving the same firearm.

Mitigating factors included youth and difficult upbringing for one offender, and being a first offender for the other.

The court also addressed the admissibility of prior discreditable conduct under Section 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code and the weight to be given to jury recommendations.

Parole ineligibility was set at 16 years for Shamar Meredith and 12 years for Thulani Chizanga.

This decision addresses a request by counsel for two individuals convicted of second-degree murder, and agreed to by the Crown, to conduct sentencing remotely via video, audio, or written decision due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the constitutional imperative of the accused's presence for sentencing under Section 650(1) of the Criminal Code, the requirement for a valid waiver of physical presence, and the public interest, including victims' rights.

The court found that sentencing is part of the trial and that physical presence serves both individual and broader public interests, especially for serious offences.

The court determined the matter was not urgent for appeal purposes and preferred to defer sentencing to early July, hoping for an in-person proceeding if courts reopen, otherwise revisiting the remote sentencing issue.

The offender pled guilty to possession of 6.2 grams of heroin and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to nine years imprisonment, while the defence sought time served and probation.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record and the highly addictive nature of the drugs as aggravating factors, balanced against his guilty plea and employment as mitigating factors.

The court imposed a sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment, less 7.5 months credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 22.5 months of additional custody.

The accused was charged with numerous weapons offences following a police search of an apartment at 16 McAdam Avenue, Toronto, where officers discovered two locked suitcases containing 12 firearms, ammunition, and a grenade.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including fingerprint evidence linking the accused to the suitcases and items within them, surveillance footage showing the accused's presence at the apartment, and his association with the primary target of the investigation.

The accused testified that he had handled the blue suitcase during a trip to London with the apartment's lessee, that his fingerprints on the ammunition bag resulted from incidental contact during packing, and that he was unaware of the weapons stored in the locked suitcases in the bedroom closet.

The court found that while the accused's explanation regarding the food sealer was not credible, the totality of the circumstantial evidence, when examined holistically, left a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused had knowledge of and control over the weapons.

The Crown applied to admit discreditable conduct evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The evidence consisted of video surveillance showing the accused in possession of a long-barrelled firearm at a motel the day before the homicide.

The court found that the evidence was highly probative of the accused's possession, concealment, and familiarity with the weapon, which was relevant to the issues of intention, planning, and deliberation.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, and ruled the video admissible.

Jonathan Garrett was charged with sexual assault, having previously pleaded guilty to assault and mischief.

The trial focused solely on the sexual assault charge.

The complainant's testimony was found to contain numerous significant inconsistencies when compared to her prior statements to police, hospital staff, and evidence given at the preliminary hearing.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court determined that these inconsistencies, which were not merely collateral, created a reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's lack of consent and the accused's guilt.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the sexual assault charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and Garrett was acquitted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession, purchase, or receipt of unmarked cigarettes for the purpose of sale contrary to Section 29(1) of the Tobacco Act.

The Crown sought a fine of $29,819.00 plus 15 months probation.

The defendant sought a suspended sentence with two years probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, finding exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the statutory minimum fine of $89,959.25 under Section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court considered the defendant's financial hardship, unemployment due to vision loss, administrative penalties totaling $161,310.26, and the fact that the defendant was a delivery person rather than the primary actor in the scheme.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control of a motor vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and refusal to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from events on December 25, 2016.

The accused was found unconscious in a motor vehicle displaying signs of impairment.

The Crown alleged impairment by alcohol.

The defence presented medical evidence of significant head trauma, concussion, and a broken nose sustained during an altercation at a party.

The court found that while impairment was evident, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol was the cause, as the symptoms were consistent with traumatic brain injury.

On the refusal charge, the court found the accused did not refuse on purpose but rather was unable to provide an adequate sample due to his injuries.

The court acquitted on both charges.

The defendant was convicted after trial of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered 169 pounds of marijuana in a van that the defendant was driving after he breached a police roadblock.

The Crown sought a sentence of nine to twelve months' imprisonment, while the defence sought a ninety-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a ninety-day intermittent sentence with three years' probation, community service, and an enhanced victim surcharge, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation and the defendant's personal circumstances, including his long-term permanent resident status and family ties in Canada.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 committed between March and September 2015 while employed at a dental office.

She defrauded her employer of $63,000 through fraudulent transactions and casino cash advances.

The Crown sought four years imprisonment; the defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence with three years probation.

The court imposed a three-year custodial sentence, finding that the breach of trust, significant financial loss, extensive criminal history involving similar offences, and post-employment campaign of harassment and intimidation against the victim constituted aggravating circumstances that outweighed mitigating factors including guilty plea, mental health treatment, and partial restitution efforts.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and drug offences after police executed a search warrant at his residence and found a loaded prohibited firearm, ammunition, and drugs in his bedroom.

The accused pleaded guilty to the drug charges but denied knowledge of the firearm and ammunition, which were found in a shared closet.

A friend of the accused testified that he had hidden the firearm and ammunition in the closet without the accused's knowledge.

Applying the W.(D.) test for credibility, the court accepted the accused's testimony and found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge of the firearm and ammunition.

The accused was acquitted of the firearm charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (1.59 grams for $240 on March 23, 2016).

The Crown and defence agreed the accused was a drug addict but disagreed on whether he was an "addict-trafficker." The court found the accused was an addict-trafficker who sold small quantities of cocaine to feed his own addiction rather than for profit.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years' probation, finding this an exceptional case where a non-custodial sentence was appropriate given the accused's strong rehabilitative efforts, stable employment, family support, and successful completion of methadone treatment with clean urine samples.

The court also imposed a 10-year firearms prohibition and a DNA order.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge found beyond a reasonable doubt that the apartment was the appellant's residence and that he had knowledge of and control over the cocaine found in the freezer.

On appeal, the appellant contended that the verdict was unreasonable and that one could reasonably infer the apartment was his wife's home and that she alone had knowledge of the cocaine.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding it was reasonable for the trial judge to conclude that the evidence as a whole excluded all reasonable alternatives to guilt.

Five appellants convicted of drug-related offences appealed their convictions, challenging the application judge's admission of evidence obtained pursuant to wiretap authorizations under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellants argued that the application judge erred in his s. 24(2) analysis by failing to adequately recognize the impact of prior police misconduct and by not giving appropriate effect to findings of serious carelessness in the affidavits.

Ba Tuan Tran also appealed his sentence of 15 months imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all conviction appeals and the sentence appeal, finding the application judge's analysis fair, balanced, and correct.

The appellant appealed his conviction for attempt to obstruct justice, arguing that the trial judge erred in applying the standard of reasonable doubt and that the evidence did not support a finding of intent to obstruct justice.

The trial judge had found that the appellant drove a person to a remote property north of Parry Sound to familiarize him with the location so that a false confession to a marijuana cultivation charge would be credible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's findings were reasonable on the evidence and that once the trial judge accepted the Crown's evidence regarding the trip to the property, it was open to conclude that the appellant had the requisite intent.

The appellant was convicted of conspiracy to traffic two kilograms of methamphetamine and sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

The conviction was based on intercepted communications obtained via a wiretap authorization.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in dismissing his Garofoli application, refusing leave to cross-examine the affiants, and failing to excise importation references from the affidavit.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the police had reached an investigative impasse and established investigative necessity for the wiretap.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the seven-year term was not demonstrably unfit given the appellant's record and the need for deterrence.

The appellant appealed his robbery convictions on the ground that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury on the frailties of eyewitness identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal held that while it would have been better to give the cautionary instruction, no request was made at trial.

The Court applied the curative proviso and dismissed the appeal, finding that the identification and circumstantial evidence against the appellant was overwhelming.

Summary conviction appeal from a conviction for failing to provide a breath sample under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the police failed to make the Approved Screening Device demand “forthwith” because several minutes elapsed before the demand was issued.

The appeal court held that the trial judge correctly applied the governing jurisprudence and reasonably concluded that the demand, made approximately seven minutes after detention when the device arrived, satisfied the “forthwith” requirement.

Although the trial judge identified technical breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, the breaches did not justify exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The conviction was upheld.