Michael Waby

The accused was charged after a stabbing outside a Toronto pub in which the complainant, an unarmed former friend, initiated the physical confrontation with a punch.

The trial focused on self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code, particularly whether the accused's response in using pepper spray and then repeatedly stabbing the complainant was reasonable and proportionate.

The court accepted that force was being used against the accused and that she acted defensively, but found there was no reasonable basis to conclude her life was at risk or that others present were joining the fight.

Applying the W.(D.) and Khill frameworks, the court rejected material portions of the accused's account, found her escalation to weapons unlawful and disproportionate, and entered convictions on all eight counts, subject to later discussion of Kienapple issues.

The accused was tried on impaired operation and over 80 charges arising from a rear-end collision, departure from the scene, and later police observations of alcohol consumption.

The court rejected Charter challenges alleging unlawful arrest, arbitrary detention, and language-based breaches of the rights to be informed of and to exercise counsel, holding that the accused was proficient in English and that no special circumstances required additional interpretive measures.

Although the arresting officer delayed reading the breath demand, the court held the qualified breath technician lawfully made the demand as soon as practicable upon forming reasonable grounds.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove impaired operation beyond a reasonable doubt, but admitted the breath readings and convicted on the over 80 count.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter after striking his roommate multiple times with a cricket bat during an alcohol-fuelled altercation.

The victim died from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court considered the accused's cognitive impairment, health issues, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody as mitigating factors, while noting the sustained nature of the assault and the vulnerability of the victim as aggravating.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment, reduced to 33 months net after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

In this criminal trial for refusing to provide a breath sample after a collision, the accused sought Charter remedies including exclusion of evidence and a stay under ss. 24(2) and 24(1).

The court held that the roadside detention, handcuffing, and force used by police were reasonable in the circumstances, and found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), or 12.

The court also found no breach of s. 10(b), confirming that immediate compliance with a lawful ASD demand does not trigger prior access to counsel.

In the alternative, the court held any potential s. 10(b) breach was minimal and would not justify exclusion under the Grant framework.

In a sexual assault trial arising from a same-day dating-app encounter, the court first dismissed an application for a stay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

Although the post-adjournment delay stemmed from avoidable mid-trial issues under ss. 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code, responsibility for that delay was shared by both Crown and defence, and the 15-month total delay was not shown to be markedly longer than it reasonably should have been.

On the merits, the Crown relied solely on the complainant's evidence to prove absence of consent.

The trial judge found significant credibility and reliability concerns, concluded the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to all of the sexual activity, and entered an acquittal.

The Crown brought an application under section 117.05 of the Criminal Code seeking forfeiture of firearms and ammunition seized from the respondent, a prohibition on possession of weapons for five years, and ancillary orders.

The respondent opposed the application and sought a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process.

The court found that the respondent exhibited a dangerously cavalier attitude toward firearm ownership, demonstrated by his reckless conduct in allowing an unlicensed individual to take possession of a newly purchased shotgun and ammunition.

The court also found that the respondent harbored irrational grievances against the justice system and lacked the emotional stability and responsibility required of a licensed gun owner.

The Crown's application was granted in its entirety.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving intrafamilial allegations of sexual and physical abuse, the court assessed the evidence under the W.(D.) framework and the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard.

The court accepted the evidence of the complainants describing grooming, coercive control, repeated sexual touching, attempted penetration, assaults, choking, and threats, and rejected the defence theory of collusion and fabrication motivated by family conflict.

The court found that the accused used his position of authority within the family to isolate and control the complainants and that the chair placed at the bedroom door established forcible confinement.

The accused's evidence was found evasive and unreliable, including on his claimed physical limitations and his role in the family.

Convictions were entered on all eight counts.

The accused was tried on a single count of assaulting a peace officer arising from a verbal confrontation with an officer performing paid duty traffic control after a baseball game.

The case turned entirely on credibility and reliability, with the defence alleging fabrication and arguing that the accused only spat on the ground.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt standard, the court accepted the officer’s evidence as credible, found the accused understated her intoxication and combative conduct, and rejected the defence account.

The court concluded the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused deliberately spat on the officer and found her guilty.

In a sexual assault trial subject to a publication ban, the central issue was consent to intercourse following consensual kissing and other sexual activity after a nightclub encounter.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework and the reasonable doubt instruction, focusing on credibility, reliability, intoxication, and whether any boundary against intercourse was clearly communicated.

Video evidence and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence materially undermined the Crown’s proof, while the accused’s evidence remained consistent and raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

This decision addresses the acquittal of A.P. on a charge of sexual assault alleged to have occurred during a family Christmas gathering.

The case hinged on conflicting testimony regarding the events, with the Crown relying on the complainant and her estranged wife, and the defence presenting multiple witnesses including the accused and family friends.

The judge carefully applied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the principles from R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. J.H.S., emphasizing that credibility conflicts do not automatically result in guilt.

The judge found the complainant and her wife credible but also found the accused and defence witnesses credible, ultimately concluding that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses the issue of credibility and reliability in a sexual assault trial where the accused, Benedict Okolie, was charged with sexual assault against Ms. A.A. The court carefully analyzed the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused, emphasizing the high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

The judge found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, particularly regarding her level of intoxication and behavior during the incident, which could not be reconciled with the video evidence.

The accused’s testimony was largely consistent, though some parts were rejected.

Ultimately, the court was unable to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

This decision addresses an application by Robert Freedland seeking a stay of a section 117.05 firearms disposition proceeding on grounds of abuse of process, alleging the Crown reneged on an agreement made during his preliminary hearing and that the hearing is motivated by malice following his overturned conviction.

The court found no abuse of process, holding that the original agreement not to pursue firearms charges applied only to the criminal trial and did not immunize the applicant from the regulatory firearms disposition process.

The court also granted an order for an out-of-town Crown Attorney to conduct the section 117.05 hearing due to perceived fairness concerns but denied the request to summon former jurors to investigate alleged obstruction of justice, finding no evidentiary basis for such an order.

This decision involves the sexual assault trial of Sharmake Sheikh, who was charged with one count of sexual assault against C.N. The case hinged on conflicting accounts of the events that occurred after the parties met at an after-hours club in Toronto.

The complainant testified to non-consensual sexual contact in a cab and outside an apartment building, supported by video evidence and witness testimony.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming consensual interaction and an honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The judge found the complainant credible and the accused evasive, rejecting the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Travis Roopchand, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of 80 mg.

The court found that the Crown proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt, establishing Roopchand as the driver.

However, the court acquitted Roopchand of impaired operation, finding insufficient evidence of impairment beyond the accident and an odour of alcohol.

Regarding the "Over 80" charge, the defence argued for exclusion of breath test results due to alleged Charter breaches (sections 8, 9, and 10(a)).

The court found no Charter breaches, or in the alternative, that any minor breach was inadvertent and would not warrant exclusion under a s. 24(2) Grant analysis.

Consequently, the breath test results were admitted, and Roopchand was found guilty of the "Over 80" charge.

The accused, Urgen Tsering, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his sexual assault, criminal harassment, and voyeurism charges to trial.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of trial was 815 days (26 months and 23 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice set by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the periods of delay, attributing 158 days to the defence and the remaining 657 days (21.5 months) to the Crown, primarily due to significant police disclosure delays regarding CCTV footage and a witness statement.

The court found the delay presumptively unreasonable and granted the stay of proceedings.

Michael Katz pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, assault police officer with a taser, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, and impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The offences occurred on Christmas Day 2021, involving a car collision, flight from the scene, and a violent struggle with police where a firearm was discharged and a taser used against an officer.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of 6-9 months.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the seriousness of firearm offences, the discharge of a loaded weapon on a public street, the assault on a police officer, and the impaired driving.

Mitigating factors included the accused's guilty plea, remorse, lack of prior criminal record, strong family support, and compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court rejected the defence's argument for a sentencing discount due to alleged excessive force by police during arrest, finding the officers' actions reasonable given the dynamic and chaotic circumstances.

The judge found a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to six counts of sexual assault against children, making, possessing and accessing child sexual abuse material, and breaching a SOIRA order, together with a dangerous offender application.

The court applied the dangerous offender framework from Boutilier and, despite psychiatric evidence that treatment might potentially manage risk, found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused presented a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and intractable sexual dangerousness.

In fixing sentence, the court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, protection of children, breach of trust, multiple young victims, and the continuing harms associated with child sexual abuse material, while rejecting the defence submission that a much shorter penitentiary term coupled with an LTSO would suffice.

A determinate sentence of 18 years' imprisonment was imposed, less enhanced pre-sentence credit, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order and extensive ancillary orders.

Etienne Gadbois pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud over $5000, criminal breach of trust, and obstructing justice.

The offences involved defrauding two clients while he was a lawyer or falsely representing himself as one, including forging court decisions.

The total unrecovered loss was $166,922.35.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of two years less a day, two years probation, a prohibition order, and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defense (Amicus and Gadbois himself) sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment, two years probation, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $166,922.35, and a 5-year prohibition order, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation due to the serious breach of trust by a legal professional.

Julianna Fodor was charged with three human trafficking-related offences: exercising control for the purpose of sexual services, advertising sexual services, and receiving material benefit from sexual services.

The trial involved multiple Charter applications, including a defence application to re-open a previous Charter ruling regarding the seizure of a USB device and a new Charter argument concerning standing to challenge the seizure of the victim's bank records.

The court found Ms. Fodor guilty on all three counts, concluding that the Crown proved the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also dismissed a renewed s. 11(b) application for a stay of proceedings, finding that the delay was justified by the case's complexity and attributable in part to defence conduct.

The applicant, charged with firearm and fraud offences, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 21 months and 16 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The court attributed 38 days of delay to the defence.

The Crown argued for additional defence delay and a deduction for COVID-19 ripple effects.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments regarding COVID-19 and most alleged defence delay, finding that significant delay was caused by the Crown's late disclosure of Information to Obtains (ITOs) and court staff shortages, which were not exceptional circumstances attributable to the pandemic in this context.

Consequently, the court found a breach of the applicant's s. 11(b) rights and stayed the charges.