Michael G. Quigley

The applicant, charged with sexual offences against his stepdaughter, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date charges were laid to the anticipated end of trial was over 41 months.

Applying the Jordan framework, the court deducted periods of defence delay caused by retainer issues and counsel unavailability, as well as delay attributable to discrete exceptional circumstances including a Crown family emergency and defence counsel's health issues.

The remaining operative delay was calculated at under 29 months, which fell below the 30-month ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court found the applicant failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness, as the defence did not take meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed a final order dismissing her application to relocate her daughter to Ottawa and transferring primary care to the respondent father.

The mother argued the motions judge made errors of fact, law, and mixed fact and law, including misapprehending the requirement for consent to relocate and failing to adequately analyze the child's best interests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

The motions judge correctly applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework, properly considered the mother's past conduct regarding communication, and reasonably concluded that transferring primary care to the father, who offered to relocate to Kingston to minimize disruption, was in the child's best interests.

The applicants laid private informations against six police officers for assault and perjury arising from a 2006 incident involving the execution of a Feeney warrant.

After several pre-enquete hearings, the Crown intervened and stayed the charges, citing no reasonable prospect of conviction and no public interest.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel the return of the informations and a new pre-enquete hearing.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown had the statutory power to stay the proceedings under s. 579 of the Criminal Code and that there was no evidence of flagrant impropriety by the Crown to justify judicial interference.

The applicant, charged with accessory after the fact to murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The charges arose from an execution-style shooting in downtown Toronto where the applicant allegedly acted as the getaway driver.

The Crown was seeking certiorari to reinstate a first-degree murder charge.

The court denied bail, finding that while the primary and secondary grounds might be manageable with a strict supervision plan, detention was necessary under the tertiary ground to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity and circumstances of the offence.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his convictions for aggravated assault and related offences.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record and a severe substance use disorder.

The court reviewed extensive psychiatric and psychological evidence, including risk assessments using the PCL-R, VRAG, and HCR-20.

The court found that the predicate offence was reactive rather than instrumental, and therefore did not form part of a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour required for a dangerous offender designation.

However, the court found the offender met the criteria for a long-term offender designation.

The offender was sentenced to a further 12 months in custody followed by a 6.5-year long-term supervision order.

The accused, a security guard at an RBC building, was charged with multiple offences including break and enter, theft, and mischief after 46 new Lenovo laptops went missing from a storage room.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the accused removing boxes from the storage room, obstructing a security camera, and Kijiji advertisements for the stolen laptops linked to the accused's phone number, address, and Facebook photos.

The court found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

The offender, Christopher Goulbourne, pleaded guilty to simple robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and breaking and entering related to a home invasion.

This sentencing decision addresses the fit sentence for these offenses, considering his lengthy criminal record, including a prior armed bank robbery for which he was already serving a seven-year sentence.

The court applied principles of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence, protection of the public, proportionality, and totality.

The judge determined a global sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment for the home invasion offenses, to be served in addition to the remaining four years of his previous sentence, resulting in a total of eleven and a half years of incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused sought a trial adjournment to pursue a battered wife syndrome defence, requiring expert assessment and Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) funding.

The Crown opposed the adjournment, citing significant delays.

The court granted the adjournment reluctantly, imposing strict timelines for obtaining funding and developing the defence, and setting a peremptory trial date.

The court also raised concerns about the defence counsel's budget estimates and the overall pace of the proceedings.

The applicant, Christopher Goulbourne, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for serious offences (robbery, use of imitation firearm, breaking and entering) based on alleged Charter breaches under sections 7 and 24(1).

He claimed he was assaulted by court officers and that police failed to investigate the incident.

The court found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that the force used by correctional officers was reasonable and necessary given his disruptive and aggressive conduct.

The court also found no intentional or malicious failure to investigate, but rather a miscommunication.

Ultimately, the court concluded that no Charter breach occurred, and therefore no remedy, including a stay of proceedings, was warranted.

The Crown sought to qualify Dr. Mark Pearce as an expert forensic psychiatrist to provide opinion evidence on the respondent's risk of offending or reoffending in a dangerous offender proceeding.

The court conducted a voir dire, examining Dr. Pearce's extensive qualifications, training, and experience, including his specialization in forensic psychiatry and use of actuarial instruments for recidivism risk assessment.

The respondent challenged the scope of expertise.

The court found Dr. Pearce highly qualified and accepted him as an expert in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric disorders in both clinical and forensic contexts, specifically qualified to opine on the respondent's risk of offending or reoffending.

The plaintiff, Karen Braley operating as Blackburn Residential Services, brought a motion for production of third-party documents from Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville.

This motion was in the context of a defamation action against the defendant, Christine Harriet Johnston, concerning a complaint she allegedly made to the Society.

The Society had investigated the complaint and found no reasonable grounds.

The court granted the motion, finding the documents relevant and necessary for the defamation action, and that the defendant likely acted maliciously or without reasonable grounds, thereby losing the qualified privilege under the Child and Family Services Act.

The accused, Richard Sheridan and Chad Noureddine, facing a retrial for second-degree murder, applied for severance from each other.

Noureddine argued prejudice from Sheridan's statement, potential jury misuse, and impact on his duress defence.

Sheridan argued prejudice from edits to his statement and potential prejudicial evidence from Noureddine's duress defence.

The court dismissed both applications, affirming the presumption of joint trials for co-accused in joint criminal ventures.

The court found that limiting instructions and prior edits to Sheridan's statement sufficiently mitigated prejudice, and rejected the argument that juries would be unable to follow complex instructions or that hypothetical evidence warranted severance.

The accused, Shamar Cole, challenged a search warrant for his vehicle, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights and seeking to exclude evidence of cocaine seized.

The court found that while the police had reasonable and probable grounds to search the accused's residence, the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds for the vehicle search due to a technical omission by the affiant, thus violating s. 8.

However, applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) analysis, the court determined that the Charter breach was technical and not egregious, the impact on privacy was limited (vehicle vs. dwelling), and the public interest in adjudicating serious drug trafficking charges on their merits strongly favoured admission.

Consequently, the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

The moving parties (innovator drug manufacturers) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the responding party's (generic drug manufacturer) claim for damages under section 8 of the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.

The moving parties argued that the generic drug could not have been lawfully approved by Health Canada in April 2007 due to non-compliance with bioequivalence study guidelines, rendering the section 8 claim invalid.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Health Canada's guidelines did not have the force of law and that the evidence established the generic drug would have received a Notice of Compliance in April 2007 but for the moving parties' prohibition proceedings.

The court also distinguished prior case law and held that the moving parties lacked standing to challenge the Minister's drug approval decisions in a section 8 damages action.

Sentencing for three historical sexual offences committed by an adult family member against a child under fourteen in circumstances of trust, involving repeated vaginal intercourse and oral sex.

The court treated denunciation and deterrence as paramount and found numerous aggravating factors, including the complainant's age, abuse of trust, predatory conduct, and profound long-term psychological harm.

Relying on immigration-consequence principles, the court reduced what would otherwise have been a seven-year penitentiary sentence because the offender would be deported and was ineligible for early release.

A six-year penitentiary sentence was imposed together with DNA, lifetime sex offender registration, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a custodial no-contact order.

The applicant, Valeri Gueorguiev, challenged search warrants executed on his property, alleging that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained errors and misleading information, thereby violating his rights under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The Crown conceded some errors in the ITO but argued that, even with corrections, sufficient reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrants.

The court found that the corrected ITO provided adequate grounds for the warrants and that the police errors were not intentional or reckless.

Consequently, the application to quash the warrants and exclude evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

The offender was convicted of human trafficking, procuring, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and related offences against an Indigenous woman over a four-year period.

The offender controlled the victim through violence, psychological manipulation, and financial exploitation, culminating in a severe aggravated assault where he severed her Achilles tendon with a broken glass.

The court applied the Tang factors to assess the aggravating circumstances and sentenced the offender to a global term of 13 years' imprisonment, including a consecutive sentence for choking, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired driving, dangerous operation causing bodily harm, and breach of probation after striking a motorcycle from behind, causing severe, life-altering injuries to the passenger and serious injuries to the driver.

The offender was highly intoxicated and fell on the injured passenger at the scene.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting an upward trend in sentences for impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The offender was sentenced to a total of four years and three months before credit, resulting in two years less a day in custody, followed by three years of probation and a five-year driving prohibition.

The offender, a 58-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of historical sexual interference, sexual touching, and simple assault against a child who was between five and seven years old at the time.

The offences occurred approximately 30 years ago while the offender was in a position of trust living with the child's mother.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 to 4.5 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the significant impact on the victim, but considered the offender's age, poor health, and lack of criminal record as mitigating factors.

The offender was sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.

Shamar Cole, a 22-year-old first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of possession of 275.33g of crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The drugs were found during search warrants at his associated residence and a vehicle registered to him.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought two to two-and-a-half years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the commercial nature of the dealing, lack of remorse evidenced by a Facebook post, and the presence of drug paraphernalia and cash.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth and lack of prior record.

The court imposed a sentence of two years and eight months imprisonment, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of seized cash and a vehicle.