M. Mandel

The offender pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing bodily harm after placing his infant child face down on a thick blanket, resulting in catastrophic and permanent brain damage.

The court considered the offender's breach of trust as a parent, the profound impact on the vulnerable victim, and the offender's repeated breaches of bail.

The court also factored in the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody during the COVID-19 pandemic as a mitigating factor.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment before credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years of probation.

In a complex construction delay action regarding the Toronto York Spadina Subway Extension, the plaintiff contractor and defendant transit commission brought cross-motions regarding refusals and undertakings from examinations for discovery.

The court applied the principle of proportionality under Rule 29.2.03 to resolve the remaining disputes.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce a breakdown of estimated project costs and a sample of 75 Requests for Information, but denied requests for the plaintiff's profit and loss reports and the internal correspondence of its scheduling consultant.

The defendant was ordered to produce the time periods for its liquidated damages claims against contractors at other stations.

The Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) brought a motion for leave to file additional evidence on an upcoming motion regarding litigation privilege over approximately 1,600 documents.

TTC also sought a preliminary ruling on waiver of privilege related to a sealed document.

The court dismissed the motion to file additional evidence, finding it unnecessary, an improper use of an adjournment, and contrary to the rule against case splitting.

The court directed the responding party to inspect the sealed document on a without prejudice basis and adjourned the waiver issue to the return of the main motion.

The appellant appealed his 'Over 80' conviction, arguing his s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached when police failed to contact his wife (a non-criminal lawyer) and he spoke to duty counsel instead.

The Crown cross-appealed the trial judge's failure to render a verdict on the impaired driving charge and the failure to impose the mandatory minimum driving prohibition due to a s. 9 Charter breach.

The Superior Court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no s. 10(b) breach as the appellant willingly spoke to duty counsel.

The Court allowed the Crown's cross-appeals, remitting the impaired driving charge for a verdict and imposing the mandatory 12-month driving prohibition, holding that s. 24(1) of the Charter cannot be used to reduce a sentence below a statutory minimum absent a constitutional challenge to the provision itself.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving an eight-year-old child.

At trial, an agreed statement of fact containing the evidence of the complainant's father was filed as an exhibit but was subsequently lost and could not be recreated.

The trial judge had relied on this missing exhibit as independent evidence of the complainant's post-event emotional state to confirm her testimony and reject the appellant's denial.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the incomplete appellate record made it impossible to determine if the trial judge erred in his reliance on the father's statement.

Finding a serious possibility that the missing exhibit deprived the appellant of a ground of appeal, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit, arguing he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

He claimed he told his trial lawyer that he had informed the arresting officer he had just finished his last drink, which would have raised a residual mouth alcohol issue.

The appeal court admitted fresh evidence but found the appellant's testimony inconsistent and not credible.

The court accepted the trial counsel's evidence that he was never told this information.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle over the legal limit, arguing the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to make an Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, failed to make the demand 'forthwith', and violated his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The summary conviction appeal judge upheld the trial judge's findings that the inexperienced officer's suspicion crystallized after conducting computer checks, justifying the brief delay.

The court found the demand was made forthwith once reasonable suspicion was formed, and thus the suspension of the right to counsel was lawful.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused were charged with first degree murder arising from a shooting in a Toronto parking lot.

Prior to trial, multiple evidentiary motions were argued concerning hearsay statements of the deceased, references to one accused’s prior incarceration, rap videos and video clips allegedly amounting to confessions or demonstrating intent, gang expert evidence, weapons possession evidence, and alleged post‑offence conduct indicating consciousness of guilt.

The court applied principles governing hearsay admissibility, similar fact and bad character evidence, probative value versus prejudicial effect, expert evidence disclosure under s. 657.3 of the Criminal Code, and the law of post‑offence conduct.

Several items of Crown evidence—including rap videos, gang evidence, prior weapons conviction, and alleged consciousness‑of‑guilt conduct—were excluded due to minimal probative value and high prejudicial impact.

Limited evidence such as certain hearsay statements, a contemporaneous “locked and loaded” remark, and testimony that one accused possessed a revolver shortly before the shooting were admitted.