Michael Steven Simrod

The accused, Suhail Alsendi, faced charges of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and carrying a concealed weapon.

The trial included a blended voir dire concerning alleged Charter rights violations (ss. 9 and 10(b)).

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the BB gun was a weapon or firearm, or that he intended to use it in a dangerous manner, or that he intended to conceal it.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted on both charges, rendering the Charter remedy discussion moot.

The defendant was charged with three child luring offences arising from a police undercover operation.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to text messages exchanged with an undercover officer posing as a young escort.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who engaged in the text message exchange.

Additionally, even if identity had been established, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed or was willfully blind to the fact that the person was underage, given the conflicting information in the advertisement and messages.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant, Natalia Safroni, was found guilty by a jury of importing opium.

A Gardiner hearing was held to determine the quantity of opium for sentencing purposes, as the exact amount could not be scientifically quantified.

The court determined that a substantial, though not precisely quantifiable, amount of opium (approximately 3 kilograms of residue/solvent containing opium) was imported.

Considering mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record, youthfulness, and prospects for rehabilitation, and aggravating factors including the serious nature of importing a Schedule 1 narcotic and the significant quantity, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 2 years less pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA sample, and forfeiture of offence-related property were also issued.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for a series of gasoline thefts and possession of stolen license plates occurring between April 2016 and January 2017.

The accused were charged on separate informations but tried together.

The Crown relied on affidavit evidence from gas bar managers, closed-circuit video footage of the thefts, and circumstantial evidence linking both accused to the vehicles and stolen plates used in the offences.

Neither accused testified.

The court found both accused guilty of the theft charges (with one exception due to video distortion) and guilty of possession of stolen license plates based on the striking similarities in the methods of operation, physical characteristics, vehicles, and stolen plates used across all incidents.

The Crown sought to admit evidence from Sgt. Rodney Gray regarding the quantified weight of opium extracted from felt cloths, which Health Canada could not determine.

Sgt. Gray performed an experimental process involving rinsing the cloths in warm water and boiling the rinse water to obtain a residue he identified as opium.

The defence argued this constituted expert evidence for which Sgt. Gray was not qualified.

The court determined that the experimental methodology and the interpretation of its results were beyond ordinary human experience, thus qualifying as expert evidence.

Given Sgt. Gray's lack of scientific background and the unverified nature of his methodology, his proposed testimony was ruled inadmissible.

Two young, first-time offenders pleaded guilty to smoking on board an aircraft and mischief to property following disruptive behaviour aboard a Cuba-bound flight.

The defendants consumed duty-free alcohol, became intoxicated, smoked in the washroom, and made a bomb threat that caused the aircraft to return to Toronto.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation and restitution, while the defendants sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed conditional discharges with 12-month probation, 100 hours additional community service, alcohol counselling, $500 fines for the aviation offence, and $7,500 restitution each to the airline.

The defendants were jointly charged with possessing a controlled substance.

During trial, they sought exclusion of heroin found in their vehicle based on alleged violations of their Charter rights (sections 8 and 9).

The central issue was whether police had reasonable grounds to arrest them.

The Crown sought to introduce a statement made by one defendant to police in 2012 during an unrelated investigation as part of the officer's grounds for arrest.

The defence objected, arguing the Crown must first prove the statement was voluntary.

The court ruled that the Crown does not need to prove voluntariness of an accused's statement prior to its admission in a Charter voir dire, following the reasoning in R v Paterson.

The accused was found guilty of dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death, and manslaughter.

The court addressed the issue of multiple convictions, conditionally staying manslaughter and dangerous driving causing death, and entering a conviction for criminal negligence causing death.

The court also criticized the Pre-Sentence Report for inappropriate content.

Considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including the accused's youth, lack of prior criminal record, and the absence of alcohol, the court imposed a sentence of two years less a day imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, and a 15-year driving prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000.

Between May 2014 and June 2015, the accused, a Commodity Manager at a payment systems company, defrauded her employer of $5,467,204.08 through a sophisticated scheme involving fictitious purchases from a shell company.

The accused created a shell company with a name nearly identical to a legitimate vendor, obtained vendor approval through deception, circumvented internal controls including the three-way match system, and personally collected cheques which she deposited into an account she controlled.

Upon discovery, the accused fled to Spain where she was arrested and extradited.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment with credit for pre-trial custody, restitution of $5,476,204.08, a fine of $5,476,204.08 in lieu of forfeiture with 6 years to pay (5 years imprisonment in default), and a DNA order.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving (third offence), assault with intent to resist arrest, driving while disqualified, and related offences arising from incidents on December 10, 2013 and December 16, 2015.

The accused had a significant criminal record including two prior impaired driving convictions and two prior dangerous driving convictions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 362 days in custody, reflecting the seriousness of the offences, the accused's recidivist nature, and the need for general deterrence.

The court also imposed a lifetime driving prohibition and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 care or control following his arrest on August 25, 2014.

The Crown called evidence from two police constables and filed exhibits including photographs, toxicologist reports, in-car camera video, and breath sample results.

The defence challenged whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, arguing a Charter breach occurred.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances, including the accused's condition, admissions of alcohol consumption, and vehicle damage.

The court also found the accused had care or control of the vehicle under the statutory presumption and that he failed to rebut it.

The court convicted the accused on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood on October 16, 2009.

The Crown presented evidence from four police officers, a citizen witness, and a toxicologist.

The accused testified that she became lost while driving, consumed half a bottle of juice that she did not realize contained alcohol approximately 15 minutes before being stopped, and did not drink any alcohol prior to that evening.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as raising no reasonable doubt and found her guilty of impaired operation.

However, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding the over 80 charge due to concerns about the proper operation of the Intoxilyzer device.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE program stop.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on insufficient indicia of impairment.

Additionally, the court found two Charter breaches: the accused was not informed of his right to counsel immediately upon arrest, and he was denied his right to counsel of choice when the officer failed to facilitate contact with his own lawyer and instead directed him to duty counsel.

The breath test evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused was acquitted of both charges.