M.E. Misener

Boris Borissov, a Toronto Police Service officer, was sentenced for multiple offences including theft, fraudulent use of bank cards, trafficking stolen property, attempt to obstruct justice, unauthorized use of police computer systems, and possession of a motor vehicle obtained by crime.

The offences involved abusing his position to steal from vulnerable victims (a missing person and a deceased woman) and to assist criminal associates by providing internal police information and obstructing investigations.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for police officers who breach public trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as good character, PTSD, and rehabilitation efforts, the court imposed a global sentence of 7 years' incarceration, finding the offences to be profound and repeated abuses of police power.

The accused was charged with sixteen Criminal Code and CDSA offences: four counts punishable by 14 years or more imprisonment (14+ offences) and twelve counts punishable by less than 14 years (less than 14 offences).

The accused elected trial by judge and jury and requested a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown argued the preliminary inquiry should be limited to the 14+ offences only, while the defence argued it should encompass all counts on the information.

The court held that the preliminary inquiry is restricted to the 14+ offences only, based on the plain language of the amended Criminal Code provisions following Bill C-75.

Three appellants appealed dismissals of their Charter section 11(b) applications for stays of proceedings based on unreasonable delay in Part I Provincial Offences Act prosecutions.

The central issue was whether the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan applies to Part I offences or whether a lower ceiling should apply given the simplicity of such proceedings.

The court held that the 18-month ceiling applies to all provincial court matters, including Part I offences.

The court also addressed the test for demonstrating unreasonable delay below the ceiling, the requirement for meaningful steps to expedite proceedings, and the circumstances in which summary dismissal of frivolous applications is appropriate.

A Toronto Police Service officer pleaded guilty to obstructing justice by destroying or converting evidence to his own use.

During the execution of a search warrant at a marijuana dispensary, the officer stole three cannabis-infused chocolate bars that had been overlooked during the search.

He later consumed one of the bars while on duty and armed with a firearm, resulting in severe intoxication.

His impaired state led him to make a false officer-in-need-of-assistance call, which caused responding officers to rush to the scene.

One officer was seriously injured in the response.

The evidence tampering resulted in the withdrawal of criminal charges against seven persons.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite the officer's otherwise exemplary 13-year career, finding that a conviction and conditional sentence of imprisonment was necessary to protect the rule of law and denounce the egregious breach of public trust.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of ketamine for the purpose of trafficking arising from Project Ice Castle (York Region charges), production of ketamine arising from Project Apollo (Toronto charges), and failure to comply with recognizance.

The accused was arrested in April 2015 in possession of 60 kilograms of ketamine and subsequently engaged in ketamine production at three clandestine drug laboratories in Toronto while on bail awaiting trial.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 years and 6 months imprisonment, consisting of 7 years and 6 months for possession for trafficking, 7 years and 6 months for production (consecutive), and 6 months for failure to comply.

The court credited 447 days of pre-trial custody at enhanced rates for lockdown periods and strict bail conditions.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in her blood exceeded the legal limit.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the Approved Screening Device demand and that the breathalyser instrument was operated improperly, thereby rebutting the presumption of accuracy.

The court found that the officer had reasonable grounds for the ASD demand based on observed signs of impairment and the accused's admission of alcohol consumption.

While the court found that the qualified technician improperly operated the Intoxilyzer by performing the calibration check too soon and failing to review printouts, the court determined that the Crown had satisfied the burden of establishing reliability of the results based on the subject test record and the technician's credible explanation for the initial calibration anomaly.

The accused was found guilty.