Melvyn Green

The Crown sought committal to trial of the accused on 17 charges, including dangerous driving causing bodily harm and attempted murder, following an incident where the accused repeatedly rammed his vehicle into a car driven by his sister-in-law.

The accused conceded committal on most charges but contested one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and four counts of attempted murder.

The preliminary inquiry judge discharged the accused on the dangerous driving count relating to his wife, finding no evidence her injuries resulted from the collision.

The judge committed the accused to trial for the attempted murder of his sister-in-law, finding sufficient evidence of specific intent to kill, but discharged him on the attempted murder counts relating to the other three passengers due to a lack of evidence of concurrent intent.

The applicant, a young person charged with historical sexual offences under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, brought an application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay contrary to s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Information was sworn on June 22, 2018, and the trial was expected to conclude on April 17, 2020, approximately 22 months later—exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown conceded the delay exceeded the ceiling but argued exceptional circumstances justified the excess.

The court found that while one discrete event (the judge's change of mind regarding the applicability of s. 278.92) could be deducted, the remaining delay of 21 months still exceeded the ceiling.

The Crown's carriage of the prosecution was marked by dilatory disclosure, delayed decision-making regarding jurisdiction, and inadequate planning for foreseeable pre-trial applications.

The court concluded the Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances and granted the stay.

The defendant sought a ruling on whether third-party records ordered produced to the defence under section 278.7 of the Criminal Code are subject to the admissibility framework set out in section 278.92 (as amended by Bill C-51).

The defendant argued that records judicially produced following a screening process that already balanced privacy and fair trial interests should not be subject to a second admissibility hearing.

The Crown argued that section 278.92 applies to all records in the accused's possession regardless of how possession was obtained.

The court held that the production and admissibility regimes serve different forensic functions and that records ordered produced under section 278.7 remain subject to the section 278.92 admissibility framework before being adduced in evidence.

The accused, charged with historical sexual offences against his second cousin, brought an application under section 278.7 of the Criminal Code for the production of the complainant's third-party clinical and counselling records.

The complainant conceded the first stage of the test, allowing the judge to review the records.

After reviewing the records and balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests, the court ordered limited production of portions of the records that substantively referenced the alleged incidents.

The applicant sought production of third-party records (medical and counseling records) maintained by the complainant's physician and two counseling facilities pursuant to section 278.7 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant was charged with three sexual offences alleged to have occurred between 1996 and 1999.

The complainant did not report the allegations until 2018, approximately two decades later.

The court conducted a two-stage hearing under the Mills application framework.

The complainant conceded the first stage threshold was satisfied and agreed to judicial inspection of the records.

At the second stage, the court balanced the applicant's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests and societal interests in encouraging reporting of sexual offences and obtaining treatment.

The court ordered limited production of redacted portions of the records that substantively referenced the incidents forming the basis of the criminal allegations, subject to conditions restricting copying, sub-distribution, and requiring destruction upon disposition of the matter.

The defendant was charged with three offences arising from a street robbery on July 7, 2017: having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence, assault causing bodily harm, and theft.

The complainant, a 70-year-old woman, was robbed of $500 withdrawn from her bank.

She identified the defendant as her assailant based on recognition during the incident when his face covering slipped.

The defendant denied involvement and claimed an alibi.

The court found the complainant's identification evidence credible and reliable, rejected the defendant's alibi as inconsistent with police records, and convicted on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with the complainant on February 12, 2017.

The complainant alleged that she initially consented to protected sexual intercourse, but withdrew her consent when the condom slipped off.

She maintained that the defendant continued with unprotected intercourse without her consent.

The defendant claimed that the complainant consented to resuming unprotected intercourse after he reminded her that he had no protection.

The case turned entirely on credibility and the question of whether the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted without the complainant's consent.

The court found that while the complainant's account was coherent, the defendant's account, when combined with concerns about the complainant's narrative, left reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant knowingly proceeded without consent.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault following an alleged incident at a fraternity house party on March 31-April 1, 2017.

The complainant alleged she was unconscious and therefore incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse.

The defendant maintained the complainant was conscious and consented to multiple instances of sexual intercourse.

The trial turned on credibility assessment and the capacity to consent.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to significant inconsistencies between her testimony and corroborating evidence, particularly regarding her demeanor and conduct the morning after the alleged assault.

The defendant was acquitted.

The offender, barely 18 years old at the time of the offence, was convicted of trafficking in approximately one ounce of heroin and one ounce of cocaine.

She was a courier with a minimal role in the criminal enterprise, likely exploited by others.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years of concurrent probation, finding that exceptional circumstances justified departure from the custodial range ordinarily applicable to hard drug trafficking.

The court emphasized the offender's youth, first-offender status, demonstrated rehabilitation over nearly two years of bail compliance, exemplary employment record, educational progress, and strong rehabilitative potential.

The defendant was found asleep in his vehicle parked in the middle of a residential street with the engine running.

Police arrested him for impaired care or control and "over 80" (excessive blood alcohol concentration).

The Crown charged him with both offences.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of his breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging police violated his right to counsel by failing to facilitate contact with his counsel of choice.

The court found the police breached the defendant's section 10(b) Charter rights and excluded the breath test evidence, resulting in acquittal on the "over 80" charge.

However, the court convicted on the impaired care or control charge based on the defendant's condition at the scene.

The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant executed at his residence on the basis that the Information to Obtain failed to comply with statutory requirements under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and violated his Charter section 8 rights.

The applicant was charged with possession of criminal proceeds and three counts of possession of prohibited drugs for the purpose of trafficking.

The court applied the Garofoli step 6 procedure to assess the reliability of confidential informant information that had been redacted to protect informer privilege.

The court found that the two confidential informants provided sufficiently reliable, detailed, and corroborated information that, when combined with undercover police investigation, established reasonable grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with possession of heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on police surveillance evidence showing the defendant driving a Honda in which drugs and cash were found on the rear seat.

The court applied the legal principles governing constructive possession and circumstantial evidence, finding that the Crown established beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge and control of the heroin and cocaine.

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the proceeds charge, finding insufficient evidence that the $350 cash had a criminal source.

The defendant was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a roadside breath demand under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the defendant failed to provide an adequate breath sample during roadside screening.

The defendant testified that she attempted to comply with the demand but was unable to generate a sufficient exhalation.

The court found that the totality of evidence, including inconsistencies between police officers' accounts, the defendant's credible testimony, and video evidence, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant intended to fail to comply with the demand.

The court acquitted the defendant.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an incident with his intimate partner.

The complainant alleged the defendant slapped her multiple times and punched her in the eye, causing facial injuries.

The defendant testified that the complainant's injuries resulted from her accidental fall as she ran from the apartment.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to multiple inconsistencies, contradictions, and misrepresentations regarding her alcohol consumption, the apartment ransacking, and other material facts.

Despite the complainant's injuries, the judge found the defendant's account plausible and consistent, and acquitted him based on reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and failing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples.

The Crown alleged the defendant was driving erratically and displayed signs of impairment including the odour of alcohol, glossy eyes, and a dazed appearance.

The defendant refused to provide breath samples when demanded by police.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to believe the defendant was impaired, rendering the approved instrument demand unlawful.

The court also found insufficient evidence of impairment beyond reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a restricted firearm, knowingly unauthorized possession of a firearm, and possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order.

The offender was shot at in a restaurant while dining with his wife and carried a loaded handgun for protection.

He was arrested and held in pre-sentence custody for approximately 21 months at Toronto South Detention Centre, during which he experienced extensive lockdowns (approximately 410 days out of 620 days).

The court imposed a sentence of two years in federal penitentiary followed by three years of probation, considering both the gravity of the offences and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, particularly the systemic lockdowns caused by chronic understaffing.

The defendant was charged with two counts of assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty, two counts of assaulting the same officers with intent to resist arrest, and assault with a weapon (a wooden staff).

The last count was withdrawn at the close of the Crown's case.

The defendant was arrested following a physical altercation in the foyer of a courthouse after he was observed filming inside a courtroom during a recess.

The court found that the police officers lacked statutory authority to detain and arrest the defendant, as their conduct fell outside the scope of powers granted under the Police Services Act.

Consequently, the defendant's resistance to the unlawful detention was justified, and he was acquitted of all remaining counts.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit two defendants to trial on nine drug-related offences arising from the seizure of cocaine, marijuana, and proceeds of crime from a house at 54 Sharpe Street in Toronto on November 25, 2015.

Bromfield conceded committal only for cocaine and proceeds found on his person.

Smithson conceded committal only for cocaine found in the basement where she resided.

The court applied the test for sufficiency of evidence at committal, focusing on the doctrines of constructive and joint possession.

The court found insufficient evidence to support committal on contested counts, discharging both defendants on most charges while committing Bromfield on two counts and Smithson on one count.

The accused was charged with attempted fraud, robbery, assault, and multiple counts of failing to comply with probation after entering a stopped vehicle at a Toronto intersection, taking the driver’s phone, and assaulting him.

Identification was established through CCTV footage from a nearby restaurant, dashcam video from a passing vehicle, circumstantial evidence linking clothing found at the scene, and an incriminating in-court utterance.

The court held that the accused’s removal of the complainant’s phone from his hand constituted an indirect application of force amounting to assault, satisfying the elements of robbery under s. 343(c) of the Criminal Code.

The attempted fraud charge failed because the court was left with reasonable doubt as to whether the accused’s claim that the vehicle had struck him was false.

The accused was convicted of robbery and two counts of failing to comply with probation, while the assault conviction was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The offender pleaded guilty to personating a police officer and simple possession of cocaine following an incident on Labour Day weekend 2015 in Toronto's entertainment district.

While intoxicated, the offender called 911 falsely identifying himself as an undercover officer being assaulted during a drug investigation, diverting significant police resources.

The offender was a 27-year-old first-time offender with no prior criminal record, employed as a project manager, and living with his family.

Post-offence, the offender demonstrated genuine remorse, completed drug counseling, performed over 100 hours of volunteer work, and made charitable donations.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, finding that the offender's sincere remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and lack of criminal history warranted a non-custodial disposition without a conviction.