Michael R. Dambrot

The accused was tried on charges of fraud over $5,000 and money laundering arising from his operation of two investment companies.

The Crown alleged the accused ran a Ponzi scheme, soliciting funds from investors under the guise of short-term commercial loans while actually using the money to pay earlier investors, cover operating costs, and enrich himself.

The court found that the accused intentionally deceived investors about the nature, purpose, and security of their investments.

The accused was found guilty on both counts, with the court concluding he orchestrated an overarching fraudulent scheme that deprived investors of over $54 million.

Eduardo Bohorquez and Qasim Siddiqi were found guilty by a jury of sexual assault with another person contrary to s. 272(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.

The court was tasked with imposing sentence.

The offenders, sexual predators, lured a 19-year-old complainant, S., to Bohorquez's home for non-consensual sexual activity, which they video recorded.

The court rejected the offenders' claims of consent or honest but mistaken belief in consent, emphasizing the power imbalance and the complainant's fear.

The impact on the victim was severe, leading to PTSD and a suicide attempt.

Bohorquez was identified as the leader and more aggressive participant, while Siddiqi was an enthusiastic follower.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, noting the aggravated nature of the offence.

Bohorquez was sentenced to 6 years and 4 months imprisonment, and Siddiqi to 3 years and 7 months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The accused, Abdirisaq Yabarow, facing a charge of second-degree murder, brought a motion seeking to admit an exculpatory statement he made to an acquaintance, Mohamed Khalinle, or to compel the Crown to lead this statement as part of its case.

The statement included a claim of self-defence.

The court considered the established exceptions to the rule against self-serving statements, including mixed statements and spontaneous statements.

The court found that the Khalinle statement did not qualify as a mixed statement because it was separate from other inculpatory statements adduced by the Crown, lacking a sufficient nexus.

It also did not meet the criteria for a spontaneous statement, as it was made after ample time for consideration and not upon confrontation with an accusation.

Consequently, the court ruled the exculpatory statement inadmissible at the instance of the accused and refused to compel the Crown to lead it, affirming the Crown's discretion in calling witnesses and the principle against self-serving evidence.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought an application to quash a search warrant and production order related to his electronic devices (cell phone and tablet) and to exclude evidence under s. 24(1) and (2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The application challenged the facial and subfacial validity of the orders, alleging a lack of reasonable grounds, overbreadth, material non-disclosure in the supporting information, and improper execution of the warrant outside the authorized time period.

The court dismissed the application, finding that reasonable grounds for the orders existed, there was no material non-disclosure that vitiated the authorizations, and the forensic examination of the devices was not required to be completed within the search and seizure period stipulated in the warrant, but rather was governed by the Criminal Code's detention regime.

The accused, Abdirizaq Yabarow, was charged with second-degree murder.

The Crown brought an application to determine the voluntariness and admissibility of two statements made by the accused.

The first statement was made to paramedics and police on October 4, 2017, when the accused was perceived as a victim seeking help for injuries.

The second statement was made to homicide detectives on October 6, 2017, following his arrest for murder.

The court found that the paramedics were not persons in authority and that the first statement was voluntary and admissible.

Regarding the second statement, the court determined it was voluntary and admissible up to the point where the accused expressed confusion and requested a rest, but any statements made thereafter were inadmissible as police questioning should have ceased at that juncture.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to exclude the voluntary portions of either statement.

In a second-degree murder trial, the Crown applied to admit three graphic autopsy photographs of the deceased.

The defence opposed, citing prejudicial effect and proposing alternatives such as limiting the number of photographs or presenting them in black and white.

The court applied the balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial effect, finding the photographs highly relevant to central issues including intent, self-defence, and a potential third-party suspect theory.

The court emphasized that modern juries are capable of dispassionate evaluation and concluded that the significant probative value of the photographs strongly outweighed any potential prejudicial effect.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to limit the photographs, as doing so would undermine their evidentiary purpose.

The Crown's application was granted, allowing the introduction of all three full-colour autopsy photographs.

The applicant union sought judicial review of a labour arbitration award that upheld the termination of a registered nurse for stealing narcotics from the respondent hospital.

The nurse suffered from a drug addiction.

The Divisional Court found that the arbitrator's decision was unreasonable because he failed to properly consider whether the hospital engaged in indirect discrimination by terminating the nurse rather than accommodating her disability.

The arbitrator improperly equated the nurse's guilty plea to criminal theft with voluntary behaviour in the human rights context, applying a higher standard of causation than required.

The court set aside the arbitration award and remitted the matter back to the arbitrator to determine the issue of indirect discrimination.

The applicant, convicted of first-degree murder, sought a reduction in his parole ineligibility period under the "faint hope" clause (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code).

The screening judge applied the less stringent "reasonable prospect of success" test from the 1997 amendments, as the murder occurred in 2003.

Despite some positive institutional conduct, the applicant's abysmal overall conduct, lack of genuine remorse and accountability, and persistent moderate risk for violent recidivism led the court to conclude he failed to meet the test.

The application was dismissed, but a further application was permitted after six years.

Simeon Harty was found guilty by a jury of second-degree murder and discharging a firearm with intent.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a firearm, the offender's criminal record, and being on judicial interim release in violation of conditions.

Mitigating factors included his youth, pro-social behavior, community contributions, positive conduct in detention, and rehabilitation prospects.

The jury recommended 10 years parole ineligibility.

The court, comparing the case to R. v. Grant, imposed a life sentence with 14 years of parole ineligibility for murder and a concurrent 10-year sentence (7 years 7 months after pre-sentence custody credit) for discharging a firearm with intent.

Ancillary orders for DNA, weapons prohibition, and no-contact were also made.

The appellant architect appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee finding him guilty of professional misconduct for failing to notify a prior architect on three projects and for providing architectural services through an unlicensed entity.

The Divisional Court upheld the findings regarding the failure to notify, concluding the Committee reasonably interpreted the regulation.

However, the Court set aside the finding regarding unlicensed practice, holding the Committee failed to determine whether the drawings at issue constituted a 'design' under the Architects Act.

The matter was remitted to the Committee on that issue.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy and evicting her for unreasonably refusing the landlord entry to her unit.

The tenant argued the Board Member was biased, failed to provide adequate reasons, and made unreasonable findings of fact, particularly regarding allegations of racism against the landlord's superintendent.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias, that the reasons were adequate, and that the Member's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal from an order liquidating the corporate defendant, the respondent sought costs of the appeal and a prior stay motion.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $25,000 on a partial indemnity basis, payable solely by the personal appellants to prevent the respondent from effectively paying half of his own costs through the corporation.

The court also ordered the personal appellants to fully indemnify the respondent and the corporation for the fees of a monitor appointed during the stay, as the monitor was necessitated by the personal appellants' oppressive conduct.

The appellants appealed a motions judge's decision ordering the liquidation of a closely-held corporation as a remedy for oppression and breach of fiduciary duty.

The appellants argued that the remedies of disgorgement and constructive trust were sufficient and that liquidation was punitive.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the motions judge properly exercised his discretion to order liquidation because the trust underpinning the shareholders' agreement had been destroyed, the appellants had committed grave breaches, and the business was no longer operating as originally intended.

The court also upheld the brief two-week election period granted to the appellants to purchase the respondent's shares.

The accused, charged with first degree murder and attempted murder, applied to sit at counsel table rather than in the dock during his trial.

The court balanced the interests of a fair trial and courtroom security.

Given the accused's in-custody status, criminal record, and institutional infractions, along with the critical need for the jury to have an unobstructed view of the accused for identification purposes, the application was dismissed.

The Crown applied for an order to permit two police officers to give non-expert opinion evidence identifying the accused from surveillance video in a first-degree murder and attempted murder trial.

The defence resisted the application.

The court found that both officers met the threshold for giving such evidence, having prior acquaintance with the accused and being in a better position than the jury to make the identification due to changes in the accused's appearance and their close interactions.

The court acknowledged potential issues regarding the weight of the evidence and prejudice from prior police contact but ruled the evidence admissible, inviting counsel to minimize the prejudicial risk.

The Crown brought an ex parte motion for a production order under the Criminal Code against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) to obtain audio and video footage of an interview with a sexual assault complainant.

The application was subject to the Journalistic Sources Protection Act (JSPA).

The CBC submitted written arguments opposing the order and requesting a special advocate, but did not appear in person.

The court granted the production order, finding that the general prerequisites were met, there was no other reasonable way to obtain the information, and the public interest in investigating and prosecuting sexual offences outweighed the journalist's right to privacy.

The court declined to allow the CBC to appear inter partes at this stage or appoint a special advocate, noting the JSPA's bifurcated procedure provides for a later disclosure hearing.

The footage is to be sealed, and the CBC retains the right to apply for a non-disclosure order.

Ayub Ali was found guilty of manslaughter as a party to the first-degree murder of Kadir Abdulkhadir.

The co-accused, Mohamud Dirie, was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The court was tasked with sentencing Mr. Ali, who was 19 at the time of the offence and a youthful first offender.

The jury's verdict implied Mr. Ali knew Mr. Dirie was armed and intended to recklessly discharge a firearm, and Mr. Ali aided in tracking the victim and positioning Mr. Dirie for the ambush.

The Crown sought 12-13 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court considered the aggravated nature of the manslaughter, the use of a firearm (triggering a 4-year minimum), and the principles of denunciation, general deterrence, and rehabilitation for a youthful first offender.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 years imprisonment, reduced to an effective term of 3 years and 11 months after enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

Alex Sheikh sought a review of a detention order made by a Justice of the Peace.

The applicant was charged with multiple offences, including assault and various firearm offences, and had a significant criminal record with prior breaches of court orders.

The original detention was based on secondary grounds, citing a substantial likelihood of committing further offences if released.

The applicant proposed four changes to his bail plan, including a new surety, a change in his mother's work schedule, willingness to undertake alcohol treatment, and GPS monitoring.

The court found that while these changes incrementally reduced the likelihood of re-offending, they were insufficient to overcome the substantial likelihood of committing criminal offences given the applicant's history.

The application for review was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.

The offender was convicted by a jury of armed robbery following a planned home invasion where the victims were held at gunpoint and one was shot twice.

The offender acted as the getaway driver and planner, recruiting younger individuals to carry out the robbery.

The court applied the 4 to 13 year sentencing range for home invasions, noting the severe physical and psychological impact on the victims and the offender's lengthy criminal record.

The offender was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment, less 6 months credit for time spent on house arrest, resulting in an effective sentence of 8.5 years.

The Crown brought an application during a first-degree murder trial to admit the preliminary inquiry evidence of two unavailable witnesses under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code.

One witness was too ill to testify, which the defence conceded.

The other witness had left Canada and was evading his subpoena.

The court found that the witness was absent from Canada and that it was not feasible to take his evidence via video link.

Balancing the probative value of the evidence against potential trial unfairness, the court admitted the preliminary inquiry evidence, noting the defence could lead evidence regarding the witness's credibility.