Michael Block

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace following a stabbing incident at the intersection of Rossland and Salem in Ajax.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the victim, Joshua Lawrence, who claimed he was stabbed without warning while making a friendly greeting.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting that Lawrence approached him with an open box-cutter knife.

The court found the victim's testimony unreliable and accepted the defendant's account.

The defendant was acquitted of the assault charges on the basis of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, but convicted of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace under section 88(1), as the defendant could have avoided the confrontation by contacting police.

A young person was charged with sexual assault of a complainant at a Halloween party.

The Crown's case relied on hearsay evidence from two witnesses who claimed the defendant confessed to non-consensual sexual contact.

The defendant testified that the sexual contact was consensual, initiated by the complainant's invitations and physical actions.

The court found significant credibility issues with the Crown's witnesses, including evidence of bias, contamination from post-incident discussions, and inconsistencies in their accounts.

The court also identified substantial gaps and inconsistencies in the complainant's memory of events.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving and driving with excess blood alcohol following a traffic stop on Leslie Street in Richmond Hill.

The defendant admitted to consuming multiple glasses of red wine, providing reasonable suspicion for an approved screening device (ASD) demand.

However, the arresting officer delayed making the ASD demand for 16 minutes and 29 seconds while conducting vehicle registration and background checks.

The defendant applied to exclude the breath sample evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the delay violated the "forthwith" requirement established in case law, constituting unlawful detention and unreasonable seizure.

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching of a 13-year-old complainant during the summer of 2011 when the accused was 18 years old.

The accused argued the sexual activity was consensual, that he believed the complainant to be 16 years of age, and that he took all reasonable steps to determine her age.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding that the complainant's evidence regarding coercion was unreliable and that the accused, who suffered from significant intellectual disabilities including FASD and ARND, had taken reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age given his personal circumstances and cognitive limitations.

The accused was charged with wilfully committing an indecent act in a public place in the presence of one or more persons contrary to section 173(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused exposed his erect penis in a women's lingerie store in the presence of a woman and her eleven-year-old daughter.

The accused claimed he was displaying a six-inch silicon caulking object, not his penis, which he intended to use to model lingerie for his new girlfriend.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's testimony as riddled with contradictions, and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood following a traffic stop on Highway 401.

The defence challenged the reasonableness of the officer's grounds for demanding breath samples, the admissibility of observations made during the roadside investigation, and whether the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances including poor driving, inability to focus, slow movements, and admission of alcohol consumption.

The court rejected the Charter violation argument, found the roadside observations admissible for proving impairment, and determined the tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

A youth was convicted of multiple offences arising from events in 2013 involving the recruitment and exploitation of a 14-year-old girl for sexual services in Toronto.

The offences included attempt to procure, exercise control, living off avails of a person under 18, perjury, intimidation, obstruction of a peace officer, and failure to comply with orders.

The court imposed an adult sentence of four years imprisonment, with 306 days remaining after credit for pre-sentence custody calculated at 1.5:1.

The court also imposed three years of probation with conditions including counseling, education/employment requirements, no contact with the victim, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant was stopped, detained, and searched by Durham Regional Police while walking near the courthouse.

Police claimed they believed he resembled a wanted person (Tyrone Hylton) and that he attempted to flee and destroy evidence.

The defendant was found in possession of 7 grams of crack cocaine.

The defendant challenged the detention and search as arbitrary and unreasonable.

The court found that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for either the detention or search, as the resemblance between the defendant and the wanted person was superficial and based primarily on race.

The court also rejected the police evidence that the defendant attempted to flee or swallow drugs.

Finding violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the court applied the section 24(2) analysis and excluded the evidence, resulting in acquittal.

The defendant brought a Charter application challenging the admissibility of his inculpatory statement to police.

The defendant alleged that police failed to facilitate his contact with counsel of choice, thereby breaching section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant suffered from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome and had a developmental age of 12 to 13 years.

Despite being informed of these significant vulnerabilities by the defendant's Children's Aid Society worker, police proceeded with routine arrest procedures without accommodating the defendant's special needs.

The court found that police willfully disregarded the defendant's disabilities and failed to ensure meaningful contact with counsel of choice.

The court granted the application and excluded the defendant's statement from evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with arson for deliberately setting fires at his family home on December 25, 2014, and with breaching a probation order.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's bizarre destructive behavior earlier that morning, his presence in the vicinity of the home shortly before the fire was discovered, his possession of a lighter, and the absence of signs of forced entry.

The defense argued that the circumstantial evidence could not exclude the reasonable possibility that an intruder had set the fires.

The court found that the accused's pattern of destructive conduct throughout the day, combined with the unlikelihood of a random arsonist targeting the home on Christmas Day, established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.

Two young persons were charged with multiple offences related to the trafficking and exploitation of a 14-year-old girl for prostitution in Toronto over a ten-day period in September and October 2013.

The charges included procuring a minor to become a prostitute, attempting to procure a minor to become a prostitute, failing to comply with youth court orders, obstructing police, living on the avails of prostitution of a minor, exercising control over a minor for exploitation, intimidating a minor to perform acts of prostitution, and participating in the activity of a criminal organization.

The court found that the defendants organized and facilitated a crude but deliberate criminal enterprise involving the recruitment, transportation, and exploitation of underage girls for sexual services.

The victim was recruited through peer networks, transported to Toronto, housed in hotels, advertised online, and forced to engage in multiple sexual transactions while receiving no compensation.

The court convicted on most counts but dismissed counts relating to counselling and certain control offences due to insufficient evidence on those specific elements.

The defendants were charged with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant executed at their residence.

The court found that the search warrant could not have been reasonably granted based on the information before the issuing justice.

The affiant's investigation was characterized by lack of diligence, selective presentation of evidence, and unreliable conclusions.

The court determined that the warrant violated section 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence pursuant to section 24(2) using the three-part test from R. v. Grant.

Both defendants were acquitted.

The accused was convicted of internet luring of a virtual 15-year-old boy contrary to s. 172 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 90 days imprisonment.

The court found the accused to be a first offender on the lower end of the sentencing continuum.

However, the court identified a serious Charter violation: the police unlawfully disseminated the accused's HIV status in a media release without statutory authority or consideration of constitutional rights.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years of probation as a remedy for the Charter breach while maintaining denunciation and deterrence of the underlying offence.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown established that the defendant's profound impairment was caused by drug consumption, not alcohol.

The defendant's breath samples showed no perceptible blood alcohol level.

A Drug Recognition Expert conducted a prescribed evaluation and concluded the defendant was impaired by a central nervous system depressant.

Toxicological analysis of a urine sample confirmed the presence of Lorazepam and Chlorpheniramine, both of which produce effects consistent with the observed impairment.

The court found the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant's impairment was caused by drugs.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference with an adopted daughter under 16 years of age, committed between January 26, 2008 and September 20, 2013.

The abuse was prolonged, involving multiple forms of sexual intercourse, resulted in pregnancy which the accused arranged to be terminated, and was concealed through manipulation of the victim's vulnerabilities.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years imprisonment, applying a starting point of ten years and adjusting downward for the guilty plea, counselling, remorse, first offender status, and pre-trial custody.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drug following a traffic stop where police observed signs of impairment.

The defendant brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of her arrest, the DRE (Drug Recognition Expert) evaluation, the search of her person, and the admissibility of statements made during the investigation.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding no breaches of the defendant's rights under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, no requirement to re-advise of counsel rights before the DRE process, no strip search violation, and that the DRE testing was conducted as soon as reasonably practicable.

The accused was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The defence challenged two police actions: video surveillance of the accused using a toilet in a monitored cell, and the removal and inspection of the accused's underwire bra.

The court found no Charter violation regarding the toilet surveillance due to the poor video resolution and metal plate obstruction.

However, the court found that the removal and inspection of the bra constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

Despite this breach, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings or exclude the breath test evidence, applying the three-part test from R. v. Babos.

The court found the breach did not meet the threshold for a stay and imposed a sentence adjustment as remedy.

The accused was charged with inviting sexual touching by means of telecommunication with a person believed to be under sixteen, contrary to section 172.1(b) of the Criminal Code, and attempt aggravated sexual assault.

The Crown alleged the accused solicited sexual contact with a minor through an online advertisement and subsequent communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings on grounds of entrapment and Charter breach.

The court found no entrapment, as the police investigation was based on reasonable suspicion and the accused initiated all suggestions to meet.

However, the court found a Charter breach under section 7 when police unlawfully disclosed the accused's HIV status in a media release without proper authorization under provincial privacy legislation.

Despite the breach, the court declined to grant a stay, finding alternative remedies sufficient to preserve the integrity of the justice system.

The accused was convicted on the luring charge.

A ruling on spousal privilege in a preliminary inquiry concerning charges of murder and assault with a weapon.

The court determined that the defendant's common-law spouse was a competent and compellable witness despite spousal privilege protections under s. 4 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court applied the common-law exception to spousal incompetence where surrounding circumstances disclose a threat to the person, liberty, or health of the witness spouse.

The court also addressed jurisdictional issues regarding the joinder of murder and assault charges under s. 589 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, exceeding 80 mg of alcohol, dangerous driving, and assault on police following a motor vehicle collision on New Year's Day 2012.

The accused was convicted of dangerous driving and exceeding 80 mg, but acquitted of assault on police due to reasonable doubt regarding his intent to apply force.

The court found that the accused was subjected to excessive use of force during arrest, constituting a serious breach of his Charter rights to security of the person.

However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, finding the misconduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required.

Instead, the court imposed concurrent suspended sentences with probationary conditions, including alcohol counselling and driving restrictions, to balance the seriousness of the criminal conduct with the Charter breach.