Michael Block

Sentencing decision for a police sergeant convicted after trial of breach of trust and obstruction of justice arising from a planned warrantless entry into an apartment, unlawful search, arrests and detention of occupants, and later alteration of an occurrence report to fabricate a lawful basis for entry.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence were the dominant principles because the offender was a senior police officer who knowingly abused public authority, conscripted subordinate officers, targeted vulnerable occupants, and pursued a deliberate cover-up.

Although the offender had strong rehabilitation prospects, family support, and mental health and alcohol-use challenges that post-dated the offences, those factors did not displace the need for a penitentiary term.

A global sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was imposed, with ancillary DNA and victim fine surcharge orders refused.

The prosecution alleged a police sergeant unlawfully entered and searched a private apartment, directed arrests and detention, and later altered an official occurrence report to fabricate grounds for entry.

The court found no lawful grounds, no exigent circumstances, and no fresh-pursuit basis, and accepted evidence that the impugned narrative was inserted after the fact.

Applying the breach-of-trust framework, the court held the conduct was a marked departure from expected standards and was undertaken for personal, non-public purposes.

The court also found the report-editing and related falsehoods proved obstruct justice beyond a reasonable doubt.

Convictions were entered on both counts.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Eric Oliha guilty of robbery, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and breach of probation based on evidence that he forcibly confined a woman in a McDonald's women's washroom stall, exerting control over her movements and exploiting her vulnerability.

The court emphasized that sexual assault can be established without explicit threats or physical contact if the accused's conduct creates an apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact that affronts sexual integrity.

The accused's control and confinement of the complainant, combined with his demands and the victim's fear, satisfied the elements of sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as entirely unreliable.

This decision addresses the constitutional validity of a search warrant issued based on information from a confidential source (C.S.) and corroborated by police investigation.

The court analyzed the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain (ITO) under the test established in R. v. Debot, focusing on the credibility, compelling nature, and corroboration of the C.S.'s information.

The judge rejected the accused's argument that exclusion of evidence from a prior unlawful search undermined the warrant's validity.

The court found the warrant was reasonably granted, emphasizing the detailed, recent, and corroborated information provided by the C.S. and police, and upheld the admission of evidence obtained.

This judgment concerns the trial of Evan Dunlop-Dewar on sexual assault charges.

The court first provided reasons for preliminary rulings, including the severance of counts and the exclusion of the defendant's statement due to Charter Section 10(b) breaches and involuntariness.

Regarding the October 30th sexual assault allegation, the court found significant difficulties with the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies in her testimony, under-reporting of drug use, and evasive demeanour under cross-examination.

Despite forensic evidence of sexual contact, the Crown failed to prove the essential element of lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no direct evidence and circumstantial evidence did not establish incapacity.

The defendant was acquitted on counts 2, 3, and 4.

A five-year common-law peace bond was imposed, prohibiting contact and association with the complainant, with specific geographic considerations for their shared industry.

The accused, Tuan Bui, applied for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 20 months and 14 days (622 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found a significant, unexplained 15-month delay in disclosure by the Crown, which was not excused by the COVID-19 pandemic or the alleged complexity of the case.

The court also determined that periods of defence unavailability did not cause the delay.

Consequently, the charges against the accused were stayed.

This is an appeal of convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

GMJ Electric Inc. was convicted for failing to provide a scaffold and failing to provide adequate information, instruction, and supervision to a worker who fell from a ladder.

Gino Martignago was convicted as a supervisor for failing to ensure a worker used prescribed protective devices.

The appellants argued that the trial justice erred by adopting an absolute liability approach, crafting an unworkable protocol, and applying a narrow definition of "supervisor." The appeal court upheld the trial justice's findings, confirming that a fall hazard existed, due diligence was not established, and the employer failed in its duty to inform and instruct.

The court also affirmed the broad definition of "supervisor" finding that multiple individuals could hold supervisory roles without excusing the appellant's obligations.

The appeals were dismissed.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment after his ex-wife discovered a GPS tracking device on her vehicle and found emails in his account confirming its purchase.

The accused argued the emails were obtained in violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court held that while the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails, s. 8 was not engaged because the search was conducted by a private citizen without police involvement.

The court found the accused guilty of criminal harassment, concluding that his unprovoked attack on the complainant's companion in her presence constituted 'besetting' under s. 264(2)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with sexual assaults of two men and sought a stay of charges based on Charter violations (sections 7, 8, and 15) challenging the constitutionality of police authority to publish media releases identifying the accused and detailing accusations, as well as on grounds of lost evidence due to police negligence.

The court ruled that the determination of whether the Crown proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt would precede consideration of the constitutional challenge and lost evidence issues.

The offender pleaded guilty to luring a 13-year-old girl via the internet for the purpose of facilitating sexual abuse under section 152 of the Criminal Code, and to distributing intimate images of the victim without consent under section 163.1.

The offender induced the victim to perform sexual acts and self-harm on video, captured screenshots, and subsequently distributed these images to peers in the victim's community as an act of revenge when the victim moved on to a local boy.

The victim suffered severe psychological harm, including anxiety, depression, suicide attempts, bullying, and academic decline.

The court imposed a sentence of five years less 68 days (4 years and 297 days) on the primary count, with three years concurrent on the secondary count, plus ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA, firearms prohibition, and section 161 conditions.

The Crown alleged that Michelle Hyde, a bookkeeper operating as Simply Bookkeeping, defrauded her client Castor Canadensis of approximately $300,000 between August 7, 2013 and June 20, 2016.

The Crown's case rested on evidence of fraudulent cheques written to cash or to Simply, many of which were either mis-posted to other suppliers in the general ledger or not posted at all, with funds deposited into Hyde's Simply bank account.

The defendant claimed the payments were legitimate compensation for work performed at an agreed hourly rate of $80/hour, and that cheques to cash were part of a scheme with the firm's principal to conceal the extent of bookkeeping expenditures from investors.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence entirely and found her guilty based on the totality of evidence, including testimony from the firm's principal, its accountant, and documentary evidence showing a pattern of deliberate misposting and non-posting of cheques.

The accused was arrested outside a target apartment building on suspicion of possession for the purpose of trafficking crystal methamphetamine and GHB.

The court found that the arrest was unlawful, lacking reasonable and probable grounds.

The detectives relied on mere suspicion based on the accused's presence outside the building and a "hard stare," without evidence connecting him to the target unit or any drug activity.

The court found multiple Charter breaches including violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b), stemming from an unlawful arrest effected through excessive force, an unlawful search, and a three-and-a-half-hour delay in providing access to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence and dismissed all charges.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault following an incident at an Airbnb apartment in Toronto.

The complainant alleged she was asleep when the defendant initiated sexual contact without her consent.

The defendant did not testify and called no evidence.

The trial turned on the credibility of the complainant and two corroborating witnesses.

The court found significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the complainant's evidence, including discrepancies between her trial testimony and her initial police statement, exaggerations regarding her level of intoxication, and unsubstantiated claims about the defendant's drug use.

Critically, a witness testified that the complainant and defendant appeared to engage in consensual sexual activity in the bed before walking together into the washroom, directly contradicting the complainant's account of being assaulted while asleep.

The court found it dangerous to rely on the complainant's evidence and acquitted the defendant.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences arising from the discharge of a handgun into a crowded lane in downtown Toronto in the early morning of October 14, 2017.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence of identity, as eyewitness identification was insufficient.

The trial judge found the accused guilty based on the totality of evidence, including surveillance video footage, forensic ballistics evidence, DNA analysis, and the consistency of the accused's appearance and clothing with that of the shooter.

A preliminary inquiry ruling on committal for trial involving five defendants charged with multiple counts including drug trafficking, possession of firearms, shootings, and criminal organization offences.

The Crown sought committal on 52 counts based on intercepted communications, surveillance evidence, and physical evidence.

The court applied the scintilla test for committal, requiring evidence on each essential element such that a reasonable jury could return a guilty verdict.

The judge committed the defendants on most counts while discharging them on certain fentanyl-related charges absent specific evidence of fentanyl trafficking.

The court found sufficient evidence of a criminal organization (SSW-G2M) engaged in drug trafficking and violence to enforce territorial control.

The accused pleaded guilty to child luring contrary to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.

He communicated with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl over several months, attempting to arrange a sexual meeting.

He drove over 200 kilometres to meet the fictional child and was arrested at the rendezvous location.

The Crown sought 12-15 months imprisonment.

The mandatory minimum sentence was six months.

The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum as grossly disproportionate under section 12 of the Charter.

The court found the mandatory minimum violated the Charter and imposed a one-year conditional sentence followed by three years probation.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The Crown conceded the impaired operation charge.

The defendant challenged the refusal charge on Charter grounds, arguing a violation of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) and seeking exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found no Charter breach, concluding that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable diligence in attempting to contact counsel of his choice and deliberately delayed the investigative process.

The defendant was convicted of refusal to provide a breath sample.

The defendants brought applications to exclude evidence obtained during a drug trafficking investigation, alleging Charter violations under sections 8 and 24(2).

The Crown charged both defendants with conspiracy to commit robbery and various firearms and drug offences.

The defendants challenged: (1) police observations made in a condominium hallway on February 22, 2016; (2) the search of a residence on June 9, 2016; and (3) the search of a vehicle incident to arrest.

The court rejected all applications, finding that the police conduct was lawful and that the defendants' reasonable expectations of privacy were not violated.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown presented evidence of breath test readings of 160 mgs alcohol per 100 ml blood and 150 mgs alcohol per 100 ml blood.

The defence raised two issues: first, whether the Daylight Savings Time adjustment on the morning of the events affected the admissibility of the certificate as evidence, and second, whether the defendant's Charter section 8 right against unreasonable search and seizure was breached.

The court found that the DST adjustment was properly accounted for and that the officer had reasonable grounds to demand an approved screening device sample.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused, a Registered Massage Therapist, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against female clients at a spa.

The Crown proved that the accused deliberately touched the breasts of both complainants without consent during massage treatments, despite being trained in the requirement to obtain explicit consent for breast massage.

The accused claimed the contact was accidental and therapeutic in nature.

The court rejected this defence, finding the actions were deliberate, lacked any therapeutic justification, and had a sexual character.

The accused was convicted on both counts.