Mike Kelly

L'accusé, Robert Vanier, a été déclaré coupable par un jury d'avoir publié un faux prospectus en violation de l'article 400 du Code criminel, dans l'intention d'inciter à l'investissement ou de frauder les actionnaires d'Onco Petroleum Incorporated.

Le prospectus affirmait faussement que la société avait levé 22 377 600 $ d'un placement privé d'actions.

La cour a pris en compte des circonstances aggravantes, notamment l'ampleur, la complexité et la durée de la fraude, son impact sur la confiance des investisseurs, le nombre élevé de victimes, la valeur de la fraude dépassant 1 million de dollars, l'abus de confiance, le rôle central de Vanier et son lourd casier judiciaire pour malhonnêteté.

Aucune circonstance atténuante n'a été retenue.

La Couronne a demandé une peine de 7 à 9 ans consécutive à une peine antérieure de 3 ans pour parjure, tandis que la défense a suggéré 3 à 5 ans concurrents.

Le tribunal a imposé une peine de 8 ans de prison, concurrente à la peine précédente, et a ordonné un prélèvement d'échantillons d'ADN.

Robert Vanier, accused of publishing a false prospectus, moved to exclude evidence (documents from a hard drive) found by police without a warrant, arguing a reasonable expectation of privacy under section 8 of the Charter.

The court found that the computer and hard drives were abandoned by Vanier, negating any subjective or objective reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the search was not abusive, and the motion to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of two counts of perjury for swearing false personal information forms submitted to the TSX and CNQ to take his company public.

He concealed his true identity and extensive criminal record for fraud and dishonesty.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the offender's high moral blameworthiness, his position of trust, and the potential harm to the Canadian financial markets, against his health issues.

The court sentenced the offender to 3 years of imprisonment.

The accused, charged with making, circulating, or publishing a false prospectus contrary to s. 400 of the Criminal Code, brought a motion for a directed verdict after the Crown closed its case.

The accused argued there was insufficient evidence that she knew the prospectus contained a material misrepresentation regarding a $20 million private placement, or that she actively circulated it.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstantial evidence—including her role as a founding member, her signing of the prospectus, and her failure to act when informed of severe financial discrepancies—was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt by a properly instructed jury.

The court held that the limited weighing of circumstantial evidence on a directed verdict motion does not permit the judge to resolve competing inferences, which remains the province of the jury.

The self-represented applicant, facing serious fraud-related charges in a lengthy jury trial, suffered a severe cardiac event during the trial.

Medical evidence from his cardiologists indicated a 100% blockage of a main artery and recommended two to three months of rest to avoid a potentially fatal heart attack.

The court granted the motion for a mistrial, finding that continuing the trial posed a serious risk to the applicant's health and his ability to make full answer and defence.

The applicant agreed to waive any s. 11(b) Charter arguments arising from the delay.

Les requérants, accusés de fraude et de parjure, ont présenté une motion en vertu de l'alinéa 11(b) de la Charte pour obtenir un arrêt des procédures en raison de délais déraisonnables.

Le délai total anticipé entre le dépôt des accusations et la fin du procès était de plus de 50 mois.

Après avoir déduit les délais imputables à la défense, le délai net dépassait le plafond de 30 mois établi par l'arrêt Jordan.

La Cour a conclu que le dossier était d'une complexité particulière justifiant les délais excédentaires, compte tenu du volume de la preuve, du nombre de témoins, de la tenue d'un procès conjoint et bilingue devant jury, et de la nature des accusations.

La motion a été rejetée.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon after striking a pedestrian with a vehicle following a dispute involving the complainant’s son.

Evidence established that earlier the accused had engaged in aggressive driving while pursuing the son on a motorcycle.

The court rejected the accused’s version that the complainant had approached wearing brass knuckles and attempted to jump onto the vehicle.

The trial judge found the accused’s driving on a narrow residential street constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver and caused serious bodily harm.

However, the court held there was reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally struck the complainant and therefore acquitted on the assault with a weapon charge.

The Crown appealed an acquittal following the exclusion of breathalyzer evidence in an impaired driving prosecution.

The trial judge found that the accused’s right to counsel under s.10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was breached when police failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact counsel before administering breath tests.

Applying the principles from R. v. Prosper, the court held that a brief 20‑second opportunity to use a telephone without assistance or access to counsel resources did not constitute a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right to counsel.

The accused’s statement “Let’s get this over with” was found not to be a clear and unequivocal waiver of the right.

The court further held that once the Charter breach occurred, both breath samples were properly excluded under s.24(2).

The offender was convicted by a jury of aggravated assault after attacking a teenage victim who had been forced to kneel and apologize before being struck and repeatedly kicked.

The victim suffered multiple facial fractures requiring surgery and continued to experience lasting physical and psychological harm.

At sentencing, the court considered the offender’s youth, Indigenous background, difficult family history, substance abuse issues, and lack of prior violent convictions.

While denunciation and deterrence were significant given the violent and premeditated nature of the attack, the court placed meaningful weight on rehabilitation.

The court imposed an 18‑month custodial sentence in a provincial institution followed by three years of probation, together with weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.