M. Gharabaway

The accused, charged with human trafficking and sexual assault, brought an application under s. 276 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the two complainants on their prior involvement in the sex trade.

The accused argued the evidence was necessary to challenge the complainants' credibility regarding statements made to police about their unfamiliarity with escort work.

The court largely dismissed the application, finding the proposed questioning either relied on prohibited twin-myth reasoning or lacked relevance to a live issue at trial.

Limited evidence of prior sex work was permitted solely through an Agreed Statement of Facts to contradict specific statements made to police.

The Crown applied under s. 714.2 of the Criminal Code to have a key complainant in a human trafficking case testify via videoconference from outside Canada.

The accused opposed the application, arguing the witness's disruptive behaviour at the preliminary inquiry demonstrated that remote testimony would impede the court's ability to control the proceedings and undermine effective cross-examination.

The court granted the application, finding the accused failed to show that remote testimony would be contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

The court permitted the witness to testify from her home, subject to strict conditions to ensure the integrity of the proceedings.

The applicants, charged with human trafficking and related offences, brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was 37 months.

The court deducted periods of defence-caused delay, bringing the net delay below the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

Furthermore, the court found that exceptional circumstances, including a complainant's disruptive conduct at the preliminary inquiry, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the overall complexity of the multi-accused case, justified the delay.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with human trafficking offences, brought a Charter application to exclude text messages extracted from a seized cell phone, alleging multiple s. 8 breaches.

The court dismissed arguments that the police failed to file timely Reports to Justice, conducted an unlawful warrantless search during intake, and relied on a facially invalid warrant.

Although the Crown conceded a minor s. 8 breach because the police retrieved the phone from a locker 25 minutes after the warrant's time window expired, the court admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breach was minimal and the evidence highly reliable.

The offender was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and possession for the purpose of trafficking in MDEA.

The offences occurred outside a concert.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 4.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for gun crimes in Toronto, while also considering the offender's youth, lack of related record, and rehabilitative prospects.

A global sentence of 4 years was imposed, less 51 days for pretrial custody and 3 months for restrictive bail conditions.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude evidence of a firearm and cocaine found during the execution of a search warrant at his apartment, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The search warrant was based largely on information from two confidential informants.

The court applied the step 6 Garofoli procedure, providing a judicial summary of excised material and permitting limited cross-examination of the affiant.

The court found the informants' information was credible, compelling, and sufficiently corroborated by police investigation to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The application was dismissed, with the court noting that even if a breach had occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.