Michelle Rumble

The defendant was charged with possession of an imitation firearm while committing an indictable offence (threatening death or bodily harm) and possession of ammunition contrary to a weapons prohibition order.

The court found the witness's testimony regarding the alleged threat unreliable due to inconsistencies and potential motives, leading to an acquittal on the first charge.

However, regarding the ammunition charge, the court accepted expert testimony that the modified bullets met the definition of "ammunition" under the Criminal Code, despite not being test-fired, distinguishing the case from R. v. Wilson.

The defendant was found guilty of possession of ammunition while prohibited.

The applicant sought a bail review, arguing a material change in circumstances due to delayed medical surgery while in custody and a new release plan including electronic monitoring.

The court found no material change, noting that the correctional centre had taken steps to schedule the surgery and could provide adequate post-operative care.

The court further held that even if a material change existed, bail would be denied on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the applicant's lengthy criminal record, history of breaches, and the extremely serious nature of the kidnapping and robbery charges.

Bail was denied.

The accused applied for a review of her detention order on charges including robbery with a firearm and kidnapping, arguing a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan with two sureties and a delay in medical treatment.

The court admitted the new sureties as fresh evidence but found the accused failed to meet her reverse onus on both the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court held that the proposed release plan could not adequately address the risk of reoffending given the accused's extensive criminal record and history of breaching bail conditions.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The applicant, Rashon Mair, sought a bail review following his detention by a Justice of the Peace.

Counsel argued for release based on material changes in circumstance: completion of a prior sentence, discharge of more serious charges from a preliminary hearing, and the COVID-19 pandemic impacting his health (asthma) and trial timeliness.

The Crown conceded a material change but maintained concerns on the secondary ground (public safety/likelihood of committing further offences), citing Mair's prior breach of recognizance and questioning the sureties' suitability.

The court acknowledged the material changes, including the relevance of COVID-19, but found the proposed release plan, involving his parents as sureties under house arrest, insufficient to address the substantial risk of Mair committing further offences or interfering with justice, given his history of violence and breach of prior bail conditions.

The application was dismissed, but leave was granted for a further application with a more robust plan.

The accused was charged with breaching a probation order by contacting her daughter via email four times between May 22 and July 14, 2019.

The Crown was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was bound by the probation order with the alleged term and that she was the author of the emails.

The accused claimed she sent the emails merely to see her daughter's name and did not expect them to be received because she believed the email accounts were inactive.

The court rejected this explanation as lacking credibility and found that the contents of the emails and the pattern of repeated messages demonstrated the accused intended them to be received.

The court found the accused guilty of the breach.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender and long-term offender application following the offender's convictions for a series of violent, random attacks on women, including robbery, attempted sexual assault, and break and enter.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the offender's risk of violent re-offence was moderate and did not meet the high threshold of intractability required for such designations.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 years imprisonment, reduced to 6 years and 6 months net after accounting for pre-sentence custody and enhanced credit for harsh lockdown conditions.

The applicant, R.D., sought to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless cell phone search under s. 8 of the Charter.

The police conducted a "cell phone dump" based on alleged exigent circumstances to prevent data loss, which was later used to obtain a search warrant based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) containing false information about security applications.

The court found no exigent circumstances to justify the warrantless search and that the ITO contained inaccurate information, constituting serious state misconduct.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court determined that the seriousness of the state conduct and the significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected privacy interests outweighed society's interest in the admission of the highly probative evidence, leading to its exclusion.

This ruling addresses a Crown application for voluntariness of a post-arrest videotaped statement and a defence motion to exclude the statement under sections 10(a) and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the Crown proved voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defence failed to establish a section 10(a) Charter violation.

The statement was deemed admissible, as the descriptions of the offences provided to the defendant were found to be unobjectionable and sufficient to convey the nature of his jeopardy, despite his claims of misunderstanding.

The accused was convicted of 15 offences arising from a domestic violence incident in which he entered his former spouse's home with a loaded, sawed-off shotgun with the intent to compel her to take him to two men he intended to kill.

The victim demonstrated remarkable bravery in refusing to comply despite being threatened with death and having the shotgun pointed at her temple.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less 14 months credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in 70 months to be served.

The sentence reflects the gravity of the offences, the use of a loaded firearm, the planning and preparation involved, and the significant threat posed to the victim and the community, while considering mitigating factors including the accused's role as a good father and genuine remorse.

The York Regional Police and the Crown brought a certiorari application to quash five defence subpoenas issued for a preliminary hearing.

The subpoenas sought to compel police officers to attend for discovery and to produce documents related to the policy of not audio recording booking areas.

The court held that while discovery is a legitimate ancillary purpose of a preliminary hearing, subpoenas cannot be used as a disguised attempt to obtain disclosure, circumventing the Stinchcombe/O’Connor regime.

The court quashed the subpoenas as they pertained to the production of documents but ordered that four police witnesses attend for discovery purposes, subject to the preliminary hearing justice's discretion to limit unreasonable discovery.

The accused was charged with 15 offences arising from an incident on February 5, 2018, where he allegedly confronted his former spouse at her home with a loaded sawed-off shotgun, threatened to kill her and two men, and forcibly confined her.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the credible testimony of the complainant, corroborated by independent witness evidence, forensic firearms analysis, and circumstantial evidence including a shotgun shell recovered from the scene.

The accused's defence was that he possessed only a pellet gun and had no knowledge of the shotgun or ammunition.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and the accused's testimony to be illogical, internally inconsistent, and contradicted by external evidence.

The court convicted on all counts.

The Crown applied to adduce evidence of past threats made by the accused against a former boyfriend of the complainant.

The defence conceded some relevance but argued the details were dated and disputed, potentially diverting the trial from central issues.

The court found the evidence directly relevant to the complainant's credibility and the accused's animus, which were central issues at trial.

The court determined the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and, noting the judge-alone trial format, allowed the Crown to proceed with the evidence.

The defendant was found guilty after trial of two breaches of recognizance arising from a single event of being at a hotel overnight.

The Crown sought 30 days custody on each count served concurrently, while the defence sought a conditional discharge with probation.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years probation, reporting conditions, counselling as required, and community service, considering the defendant's strong employment and professional prospects as a professional engineer, the collateral consequences of a conviction on his career, and the fact that he had already spent the equivalent of five days in custody.

The accused faced 22 charges relating to three random attacks on women and a scheme involving fake Craigslist job postings.

The Crown alleged the accused targeted women for kidnapping and sexual assault.

The court found the accused guilty of multiple offences, including robbery, attempt kidnapping, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and attempt sexual assault in relation to the physical attacks, relying heavily on circumstantial evidence, DNA, and the doctrine of recent possession.

However, the court acquitted the accused of attempt kidnapping and attempt sexual assault regarding the Craigslist scheme, finding the acts did not go beyond mere preparation and the specific intent was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, following findings that five of six judicial authorizations were invalid and police exceeded the "plain view" doctrine during searches.

The court applied the R. v. Grant framework to various items.

Computer and cell phone evidence were excluded due to serious Charter violations and high impact on privacy interests.

Observations of the computer screen were also excluded.

However, handcuffs, a forensic textbook, handwritten notes, and Rogers cell phone records were deemed admissible, as their exclusion would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, despite some Charter breaches, particularly where lawful alternative means to obtain the evidence existed.

The applicant, facing 22 criminal charges including attempted sexual assault and kidnapping, brought a pre-trial application challenging the validity of six judicial authorizations (search warrants and a production order) under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a Garofoli review, finding that while the affiant made full, fair, and frank disclosure, only the initial telewarrant for specific items (sunglasses and gloves) was valid.

However, specific seizures and searches conducted under this initial warrant (handcuffs, a forensic textbook, and activating a laptop screen) were deemed unlawful as they exceeded the warrant's scope or the plain view doctrine.

The subsequent five judicial authorizations, including a second telewarrant for laptop seizure, two warrants to search laptop contents, a warrant to search a cell phone, and a production order for cell phone records, were all quashed due to insufficient grounds or fatal flaws on their face.

The court emphasized that "plausibility" or "possibility" is not the legal standard for issuing warrants, which require "reasonable and probable grounds." The admissibility of the unlawfully obtained evidence will be determined in a subsequent s. 24(2) Charter analysis.

The accused, Antonio Ricciardi, brought a pre-trial application challenging the warrantless seizure of his sweatshirt by police during a court appearance.

The Crown argued the seizure was authorized under s. 489(2) of the Criminal Code as a simple seizure of evidence in plain view.

The court, applying a broad and purposive interpretation of Charter s. 8 privacy rights, held that the non-consensual removal of clothing from a person constitutes a "search and seizure," not merely a "seizure." Since s. 489(2) only authorizes a seizure and not a search, the police action fell outside its scope and violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault, mischief under $5,000, and two counts of breach of probation following a trial.

The assault occurred when the offender, armed with a knife, lay in wait for the victim to enter his home after the offender had thrown the victim's belongings onto the front lawn.

The victim suffered a stab wound to the left elbow requiring stitches and resulting in lasting nerve damage that affected his ability to work as a welder.

The offender had an extensive criminal record spanning 21 years with multiple prior convictions for assault, robbery, and various breaches.

The Crown sought two years less a day; the defence sought five months.

The court imposed 21 months in custody less pre-trial credit, followed by three years' probation, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation over rehabilitation given the aggravating circumstances and the offender's poor track record.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief to private property relating to an altercation with the victim, as well as two counts of breach of probation.

The trial involved a three-day hearing with evidence from the victim, the accused, and a third party witness.

The court found the accused guilty on all charges after rejecting the accused's self-defence claim.

The court determined that the accused had armed himself with a kitchen knife in anticipation of the victim's return to the house and used it disproportionately against an unarmed opponent.

The court found the accused's post-offence conduct—breaking the knife and hiding the blade in a toilet tank—demonstrated consciousness of guilt and knowledge that his actions were unlawful.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

Following a trial on Charter applications and the merits, the accused was found guilty.

The court dismissed Charter applications alleging breaches of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) and section 9 (arbitrary detention) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that both officers had reasonable suspicion to demand an approved screening device test and that the test result was reliable.

The accused was sentenced to a fine of $1,750 plus victim surcharge (total $2,275), payable over one year, and an 18-month driving prohibition with a six-month suspension followed by 12 months of interlock device requirements.