Michael G. Quigley

The offender was convicted of multiple offences arising from two incidents targeting the same victim: discharging a firearm at her and intentionally ramming her vehicle during a high-speed chase while brandishing an imitation firearm.

The court considered the offender's background, including the impact of systemic racism, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody.

The Crown sought a 22-year sentence and delayed parole eligibility, while the defence proposed 10 years.

The court imposed a net global sentence of 17 years and 1 month, which was reduced to 10 years, 3 months, and 21 days after applying credit for pre-sentence custody, and declined to order delayed parole eligibility.

The two offenders were convicted by a jury of a violent armed home invasion robbery and related firearms offences.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the planned home invasion and use of firearms, balanced against mitigating factors including the offenders' youthful status, expressions of remorse, and the significant impact of systemic anti-Black racism on their backgrounds as detailed in Enhanced Pre-Sentence Reports.

The court applied the Morris framework to reduce their moral culpability and emphasize rehabilitation, sentencing the first offender to 9 years and the second offender to 7.5 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder after shooting an unarmed construction worker at a worksite following a motor vehicle collision and attempted theft of a work van.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the statutory minimum of 10 years.

The sentencing judge found no evidence of planning but noted the aggravating factors of introducing a loaded firearm into a public altercation.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 12 years.

The United States sought the extradition of Sabrina Elofer.

Elofer brought an application for extraordinary disclosure, leave to cross-examine police officers, and a stay of proceedings based on alleged abusive state conduct, which was dismissed.

Elofer then sought reconsideration of that decision, arguing she had not had a full opportunity to make submissions on all issues.

The court dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error in its prior decision and that the applicant's arguments had been sufficiently heard and lacked an air of reality to justify further proceedings or a stay.

The United States sought the extradition of the applicant for her alleged role in a telemarketing fraud scheme.

The applicant brought an application for exceptional disclosure, the right to cross-examine police officers, and a stay of proceedings, alleging that the arrest warrant was obtained through deception and executed in violation of her Charter rights.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no air of reality to the allegations of police misconduct, no Charter breaches, and no nexus between the alleged conduct and the extradition committal hearing.

The Crown sought directions regarding solicitor-client privilege over financial documents (cheques and statements of account) obtained from financial institutions during a fraud investigation against the defendants.

The court ruled that cheques to or from a lawyer/law firm are presumptively not privileged when obtained from a financial institution, as they reflect transactions, not communications.

Even if presumed privileged, that presumption was rebutted in this case.

For legal invoices, the court ordered that copies be securely retained until the conclusion of proceedings or destroyed, and that a vetted copy of seized records be made for disclosure.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, applied for bail pending a retrial ordered by the Court of Appeal.

The court found that the applicant failed to meet his burden to show that his detention was not justified on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The proposed release plan was deemed insufficient to mitigate the risk of reoffending or interfering with the administration of justice, and the strong circumstantial case against the applicant necessitated his continued detention to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for bail was dismissed.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to vacate a previous detention order on firearms charges.

The applicant argued that a material change in circumstances had occurred, including the resolution of other outstanding charges, 10 months of pre-trial custody, and a new release plan with electronic monitoring.

The Superior Court of Justice found that a material change was established.

The court was satisfied by the applicant's evidence demonstrating a commitment to abide by the strict release conditions and concluded that detention was no longer justified on secondary or tertiary grounds.

The application was granted and the applicant was released on bail.

The offender pleaded guilty to trafficking in over one kilogram of cocaine.

Sentencing was delayed for eight months on compassionate grounds to allow the offender to care for his terminally ill mother.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought three years based on the principle of restraint and the offender's lack of a recent criminal record.

The court weighed the significant quantity of drugs and commercial nature of the enterprise against the offender's guilty plea, remorse, and strong rehabilitation prospects.

The court imposed a sentence of four years imprisonment, finding it appropriate and below the usual range for such offences.

The appellant, Janos Rweyemanu Rutaihwa, appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient, failed to resolve material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, and took improper judicial notice regarding the nature of the sexual intercourse.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the complainant's credible and reliable evidence, which was found to have "remarkable particularity." The court also found no misapprehension of the appellant's evidence regarding alcohol consumption or improper judicial notice, concluding that the trial judge's findings were supported by the evidence and that the appellant's evidence was unreliable.

The offender was sentenced for aggravated assault, pointing a firearm, and multiple firearms possession and breach offences arising from two separate incidents.

In the first incident, the offender confronted a victim with a loaded handgun, pistol-whipped him, and the gun discharged during the ensuing struggle.

In the second incident, the offender was arrested at a residence where a second illegal handgun was found.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the public nature of the assault and the offender's breach of recent bail conditions against mitigating factors including his youth, remorse, and rehabilitative efforts.

A global sentence of 5.5 years was imposed, reduced to 39 months after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh lockdown conditions.

The accused were charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences following a warrantless arrest and search of their vehicle.

The arresting officer claimed to have observed hand-to-hand drug transactions from a distance, but his testimony was found to be highly unreliable, inconsistent, and physically impossible in several respects.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, rendering the arrest and subsequent search unlawful and in breach of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the seized drugs and firearm under s. 24(2), resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

The offender, a permanent resident and first-time offender, was found guilty of possessing a loaded restricted firearm.

The Crown sought a 3 to 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day to avoid automatic deportation under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court found that the absence of typical aggravating factors, the offender's stable employment and family life, and the severe immigration consequences justified a more lenient sentence.

A conditional sentence of two years less a day was imposed, followed by one year of probation.

The offender was convicted of accessing, possessing, and making child pornography available.

The Crown sought a 3.5-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence, citing the severe medical and psychological afflictions of the offender's wife and the collateral consequences of his incarceration.

The court balanced the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for child pornography offences against the offender's low risk of reoffending, rehabilitative efforts, and family circumstances.

The court imposed a blended global sentence of two years less a day, consisting of 18 months in custody for accessing and possessing, followed by a 6-month conditional sentence for making available, plus three years of probation.

The accused was charged with knowing possession of a loaded restricted firearm after police executed search warrants at two residences.

A loaded 9mm handgun was found hidden in a child's bed in the room where the accused was detained during a dynamic entry.

At the accused's primary residence, police found identical 9mm ammunition in the pocket of a sweater in his bedroom closet.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court rejected the exculpatory evidence of the accused and his spouse.

The court concluded that the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused had constructive possession of the firearm and ammunition.

The accused confronted the victim with a loaded handgun, believing the victim had assaulted his girlfriend.

The accused pistol-whipped the victim, causing the gun to discharge accidentally.

A struggle ensued, and the gun discharged twice more.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, aggravated assault, and pointing a firearm.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and pointing a firearm, but acquitted him of attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent, finding the Crown failed to prove the specific intent required for those offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and driving over 80.

He argued the trial judge erred by dismissing his lost evidence application regarding unrecorded 911 calls, finding the roadside screening demand was made 'forthwith', and concluding his right to counsel was not breached despite a delay in implementation.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings that the 911 recordings never existed, the brief delay in the breath demand was justified by the officer managing the collision scene alone, and privacy for a phone call to counsel could not be provided until arrival at the police station.

The defendant, D.J., was charged with sexually assaulting B.B., his sister-in-law.

The trial involved a s. 276 application to admit prior sexual conduct evidence (an alleged consensual affair between D.J. and B.B. two years prior).

The judge, sitting alone, applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework.

The court found significant inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding the timing of reporting the assault, the behaviour of her protective dogs during the alleged assault, and her interactions with police.

The evidence of the complainant's sister, R.B., who testified for the defence, was found to be truthful and contradicted key aspects of the complainant's account regarding when the assault was first reported.

The judge concluded that the Crown failed to prove the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

This is a detention review application brought by H.K., seeking release from custody pending trial.

This was the third bail hearing for the applicant, and the second review.

The applicant argued for release based on alleged material changes in circumstances, including a new proposal for electronic monitoring, the duration of his custody (nearly 16 months), delays in his preliminary hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the rising number of COVID-19 cases in Ontario and at his detention facility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that none of the presented factors constituted a material change in circumstances sufficient to grant jurisdiction for a de novo review of the previous detention order.

The court emphasized that the electronic monitoring proposal failed the "new evidence" criteria for due diligence, the passage of time was not significant enough, the preliminary hearing delay was a relitigated issue with a new date now set, and the general rise in COVID-19 cases did not demonstrate a specific material effect on the applicant.

The detention was upheld on secondary and tertiary grounds due to an inadequate release plan and ongoing public safety concerns.

The Crown applied for judicial review to quash a pre-trial judge's decision that the accused was entitled to a preliminary inquiry.

The accused was charged with assault offences carrying maximum sentences of 10 years, but the Crown gave notice of its intent to seek a dangerous offender assessment upon conviction.

The pre-trial judge found that the potential for an indeterminate sentence meant the offences were 'punishable by 14 years or more of imprisonment' under s. 535 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court dismissed the Crown's application, holding that the pre-trial judge had jurisdiction to make the finding and correctly interpreted the provision by considering the accused's actual penal jeopardy.