Michael Hill

The defendant, Jacob Martin Norn, was sentenced for manslaughter and trafficking fentanyl after supplying the drug to a friend who subsequently died.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the dangerous nature of fentanyl, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation, while also weighing mitigating factors such as the defendant's youth, lack of prior criminal record, and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Despite arguments for a conditional sentence and alleged Charter breaches, the court imposed a custodial sentence, emphasizing the defendant's continued drug use post-conviction and the societal impact of fentanyl trafficking.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of manslaughter against the defendant, Jacob Norn, following the death of Tyler Ginn from combined fentanyl and etizolam toxicity.

Norn had pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl to Ginn.

The central issues were whether the fentanyl supplied by Norn was a significant contributing cause of Ginn's death and whether Norn's warning to Ginn not to use too much fentanyl broke the chain of causation.

The court found that the fentanyl supplied by Norn was a significant contributing cause of death and that the warning did not sever the chain of causation, leading to a finding of guilt for manslaughter.

This is a voluntariness ruling in a preliminary inquiry concerning charges of trafficking in a Schedule I substance (fentanyl) and manslaughter.

The Crown sought to admit a video-recorded police statement made by the accused.

The court applied the contextual voluntariness test, considering factors such as threats, promises, inducements, atmosphere of oppression, operating mind, and police trickery.

Despite the accused repeatedly asserting his right to silence and expressing internal conflict, the court found that he had an operating mind and freely chose to speak.

The court concluded that the statement was made voluntarily and was therefore admissible for the purposes of the preliminary inquiry.

This preliminary inquiry determined if there was sufficient evidence to commit the accused, Jacob Norn, to trial for trafficking in fentanyl and manslaughter.

The defence conceded the trafficking charge but argued against committal for manslaughter, asserting insufficient evidence regarding causation, particularly concerning the victim's consumption of other substances (Etizolam).

The court reviewed evidence including text messages, e-transfer records, security video, witness testimony, and forensic toxicology reports, which indicated the victim died from combined fentanyl and etizolam toxicity.

Applying the legal test for preliminary inquiries (the Shephard test) and the essential elements of unlawful act manslaughter, the court found reasonable inferences available to a properly instructed jury that the fentanyl supplied by the accused was a significant contributing cause of death.

Consequently, the accused was committed to stand trial on both charges.

The defendant applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence seized from his car and home pursuant to search warrants.

The defendant argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misrepresentations and omitted material facts, specifically a failed undercover drug buy.

The court found the affiant's misrepresentation of surveillance events was egregious and not in good faith.

After excising the inaccurate information and amplifying the ITO with the omitted facts, the court concluded there were insufficient grounds to issue the warrants, resulting in a s. 8 Charter breach.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence due to the seriousness of the police conduct and the significant impact on the defendant's privacy interests.

The accused challenged the admissibility of cell phone evidence, including videos and images, on the basis of a Section 8 Charter violation (unreasonable search and seizure).

The court found that all four accused had standing to bring the challenge.

While the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant for the cell phones was facially insufficient, the court considered additional information from an earlier search warrant (Appendix D) during the Section 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis.

The court determined that the Section 8 violation, though present, was not very serious, and while it had a significant impact on privacy interests, the societal interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, particularly given the reliable and important nature of the evidence (videos depicting illegal handgun possession), outweighed the breach.

Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Maneet Bajwa was convicted of six gun-related offences, primarily trafficking firearms.

The sentencing hearing addressed the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence under s. 99(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that a fit sentence would be 12 months, and the three-year mandatory minimum would be grossly disproportionate, thus violating s. 12 of the Charter.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with credit for pre-sentence custody, to be served in the community, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The accused was charged with firearms offences after purchasing two Glock handguns and transferring them to an unauthorized individual.

At trial, she admitted the facts but raised the defence of duress, claiming she was threatened by two masked men who demanded she buy the guns.

The court rejected her evidence as illogical and found that, even if believed, she had a safe avenue of escape and there was no close temporal connection between the threat and the harm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant and a co-accused were jointly charged with firearms offences.

The applicant brought a motion to sever her trial from her co-accused so that she could call him as a witness to support her defence.

The applicant offered significant procedural concessions, including re-electing a judge-alone trial and admitting the Crown's case, to ensure both trials could be completed within the originally scheduled time.

The court granted the severance motion, finding that the interests of justice favoured separate trials given the lack of prejudice to the Crown and the preservation of court resources.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous driving, arguing that his conduct, while aggressive or careless, did not constitute a "marked departure" from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, and thus lacked the requisite mens rea for a criminal conviction.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's finding that the appellant's driving was dangerous and represented a marked departure, given the aggressive and sustained nature of the driving, which included cutting across lanes, driving on the highway shoulder at excessive speeds, and running a red light.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle, operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood, and possession of marijuana.

The Crown established impaired operation through evidence of erratic driving and physical indicators of impairment.

However, the defendant was acquitted of the "Over 80" charge based on the mandatory practice of truncation of breath test results.

The court found that the defendant's lowest breath sample reading of 84 milligrams must be truncated to 80 milligrams in accordance with established training protocols, creating a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was convicted of impaired operation and possession of marijuana.

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.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood alcohol content was over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown withdrew the impairment count and proceeded on the over 80 charge.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found that while the officer had subjective grounds for arrest, an objective person in the officer's position would not have concluded reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances.

The court excluded the Certificate of Analysis as evidence under the Charter exclusion remedy, resulting in acquittal.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 253 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant brought a Charter motion to exclude the breath test evidence, alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the officer's account of the traffic violation justifying the initial stop was unclear, inconsistent, and not supported by objective facts.

The officer's testimony regarding which stop signs were disobeyed was contradicted by a map and was not recorded in contemporaneous notes.

The court concluded that the defendant's detention was arbitrary and that his Charter rights were infringed.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court excluded the breath test evidence as admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit and possession of marijuana.

The defendant conceded guilt to the marijuana charge and did not challenge evidence supporting the impaired driving charge.

However, he sought a stay of proceedings, alleging he was subjected to an unlawful strip search incident to his arrest.

The Crown argued either that no strip search occurred or that a reduction in sentence was the appropriate remedy.

The court found that a strip search did occur without justification and granted a stay of proceedings on the impaired driving charge, citing a pattern of unlawful strip searches by the police service and the need to defend constitutional protections.