Michelle K. Fuerst

The offender pleaded guilty to production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following the discovery of a large outdoor grow operation containing nearly 6000 plants.

The court considered the offender’s role as a gardener, absence of a prior criminal record, guilty plea, and compliance with bail conditions over several years.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of approximately fourteen and a half months, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the scale of the operation.

The court accepted that imprisonment was required but considered collateral immigration consequences, which could lead to removal from Canada if the sentence exceeded six months on a count.

A global custodial sentence structured to remain within an appropriate sentencing range while recognizing those collateral consequences was imposed.

Sentencing following convictions for two robberies and related offences including breach of a weapons prohibition order.

The offender robbed a pharmacy and a convenience store, threatening the pharmacy technician by claiming to have a gun and openly carrying an expandable baton during the second robbery.

The offences were committed while the offender was bound by both a probation order and a weapons prohibition order, and he possessed a stolen vehicle used in the robberies.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the offender’s lengthy criminal record and escalating violent conduct.

Accepting a joint submission, the court imposed a global sentence of five years’ imprisonment with credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 35 months to be served, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused were charged with multiple offences under the Canada Small Business Financing Act arising from three government‑guaranteed small business loans obtained between 2005 and 2006.

The Crown alleged that false equipment invoices were submitted to banks to obtain the loans and that the proceeds were diverted through companies controlled by the accused rather than used for legitimate equipment purchases.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the invoices were fabricated and that the accused jointly participated in a scheme to obtain loans through false representations.

However, the court held that the evidence did not establish laundering of proceeds of crime because the Crown failed to prove an intent to conceal or convert the funds rather than merely distribute them.

One accused was convicted on counts relating to the latter two loans and acquitted on the first loan due to identification issues, while the other accused was convicted of participating in the fraudulent loan applications but acquitted of laundering counts.

The appellant appealed a conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle, arguing that police violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms by requiring her to remove her underwire bra during the booking process at a police station.

The trial judge held the removal of the bra did not constitute a strip search and that the police acted pursuant to a routine safety policy.

On appeal, the court held that requiring removal of an undergarment for visual inspection falls within the Supreme Court of Canada's definition of a strip search under R. v. Golden.

The court concluded that the trial judge erred by failing to apply the requirement that strip searches be justified by reasonable and probable grounds based on case‑specific circumstances rather than routine policy.

Because the search relied on an unwritten policy automatically applied to female detainees wearing underwire bras, the Charter analysis was flawed.

The conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a large quantity of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

Police surveillance and a subsequent search warrant led to the seizure of approximately 41 pounds of marijuana, cash, a debt list, and an imitation pistol from the offender’s residence.

The court considered the commercial nature of the operation and the significant quantity of drugs as aggravating factors, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, family responsibilities, stable employment, and evidence of rehabilitation following the birth of his child.

Balancing these factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence shorter than that sought by the Crown.

The Crown applied to admit two out‑of‑court statements made by the shooting victim to police officers in hospital under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, or alternatively as original evidence of identification.

The witness testified at trial but claimed no memory of speaking to police and denied seeing the shooter.

The court held that necessity was not established because the Crown failed to follow the procedure under s. 9 of the Canada Evidence Act and the framework from B.(K.G.) for prior inconsistent statements.

The court further held that threshold reliability was not demonstrated because the statements were not sworn, recorded, or verified, and the circumstances of the interview and inconsistencies in the statements undermined reliability.

The court also rejected reliance on the Langille identification principle because the case did not involve identification of a stranger.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after being caught transporting 253 grams of cocaine, along with marijuana and oxycodone.

He was acting as a courier for financial gain and had no prior criminal record.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation but also considered the offender's rehabilitative prospects.

The offender was sentenced to 14 months in custody, less credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by two years of probation.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after being arrested with approximately 253 grams of cocaine, additional controlled substances, and cash.

The court considered aggravating factors including the significant quantity of cocaine and the offender’s role as a courier in a commercial trafficking operation.

Mitigating factors included the offender’s guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, cooperation with police, and rehabilitative prospects.

Balancing denunciation and general deterrence against the offender’s youth and rehabilitation potential, the court imposed a custodial sentence followed by probation.

Additional ancillary orders included forfeiture of seized items and a firearms prohibition, while a DNA order was declined.

In a certiorari application arising from criminal proceedings, the moving party challenged a trial-level order made under s. 486.3(4) of the Criminal Code and also challenged a disclosure ruling concerning a complainant video statement.

The court held that although a prior order by another judge was not binding in the circumstances, the key procedural defect was the trial judge’s failure to address the request to cross-examine the affiant on the Crown affidavit when the application was renewed.

That denial of cross-examination on affidavit evidence constituted a denial of natural justice reviewable on certiorari.

The challenged s. 486.3(4) order was quashed and remitted to the trial judge for rehearing.

The disclosure branch was dismissed as a matter potentially raising appeal issues rather than certiorari grounds.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter after fatally stabbing his friend during a fist fight while intoxicated.

The Crown sought a sentence of 8 to 10 years, while the defence sought 6 to 8 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the offender's use of a knife, his prior conviction for violence, and being on probation, against mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, remorse, and youth.

The court sentenced the offender to 8 years in the penitentiary, less 16 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a net sentence of 6 years and 8 months.

The defendants, Mohammad Mehdi Toozhy and Sameen Siddiqi, applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on charges relating to three bank loans obtained under the federal small business financing program.

The Crown alleged the defendants used false invoices to obtain loans for equipment that was never purchased, and instead diverted the funds to themselves and others.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict and found that there was some evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict each defendant on each charge.

The applications for directed verdicts were dismissed.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash an order committing him to stand trial following a preliminary inquiry on firearms possession charges.

The committal was based on circumstantial evidence that a handgun found in a bedroom closet belonged to or was controlled by the applicant.

The court held that the preliminary inquiry judge relied on speculative opinion evidence from a police officer regarding clothing size in the bedroom to infer occupancy and control.

Because the remaining evidence merely placed the applicant in the apartment and did not link him to the bedroom or firearm, there was no admissible evidence supporting the essential element of possession.

The committal constituted a jurisdictional error and was quashed.

The accused applied under ss. 462.34(4) and 462.341 of the Criminal Code for the release of restrained funds derived from the sale of a matrimonial home in order to pay legal expenses.

The court considered whether the applicant established that he had no other assets or means available to meet reasonable legal expenses and that no other person appeared lawfully entitled to the funds.

The court found the applicant’s financial disclosure incomplete and unreliable, noting unexplained assets and prior access to substantial funds.

Evidence also supported the claim of an alleged fraud victim who appeared to have a lawful entitlement to the restrained property.

The statutory prerequisites for release were therefore not met.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second degree murder for his role in the stabbing death of the victim, whose body was subsequently burned and dumped in a ditch.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 20 years, while the defence argued for 12 to 14 years.

The court considered the brutal nature of the group attack, the extensive efforts to destroy evidence, and the offender's continued violent behaviour while in custody.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a consent eviction order and to lift the automatic stay, or alternatively for interim rent and security for costs.

The tenant had lived rent-free for nearly a year while pursuing various proceedings before the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal.

The Divisional Court declined to quash the appeal, finding it was not manifestly devoid of merit, and refused to order security for costs.

However, the court ordered the tenant to pay interim rent of $1,200 per month pending the disposition of the appeal, noting there was no justification for the tenant to live rent-free.