Molloy

The offender was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crashing his Lamborghini while driving at excessive speeds to show off to his passenger.

The passenger suffered catastrophic, life-altering injuries, including permanent brain damage.

The Crown sought 2.5 to 3 years in a penitentiary, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or intermittent sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the deliberate and highly dangerous nature of the driving.

The offender was sentenced to 2.5 years in prison and a 6-year driving prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm after driving at an extreme rate of speed on the Gardiner Expressway and colliding with another vehicle.

The collision killed the passenger of the other vehicle and catastrophically injured the driver.

The offender fled the scene and had a horrendous driving record with numerous speeding convictions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the offender to 5 years in prison for the death and 3 years concurrent for the bodily harm, along with a 10-year driving prohibition and a DNA order.

The two accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences involving trafficking in firearms, cocaine, and fentanyl.

The Crown and defence agreed on the base sentences but disagreed on the extent of credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The court determined the fit sentences to be 6 years for the first accused and 7 years for the second accused, then quantified the 'Duncan' credit as a 1-year reduction for each accused due to the deplorable conditions, including frequent lockdowns and overcrowding.

After applying the 1.5:1 'Summers' credit, the remaining sentences were calculated.

The accused, charged with first degree murder in the death of a police officer, brought an application for disclosure or third party production of police training materials and disciplinary records of a key Crown police witness.

The court dismissed the application for the training materials, finding them irrelevant to the issues at trial.

However, the court ordered the production of the disciplinary records, finding that they were relevant to the credibility and reliability of the officer, who was a pivotal witness for the Crown.

The applicant sought disclosure or third-party production of Toronto Police Service investigation files regarding a tee-shirt fundraiser and police training materials.

The court found the investigation files met the first-stage likely relevance test under O'Connor/McNeil and ordered them produced for judicial review.

The request for training materials was dismissed as they were not relevant to any issue at trial.

The accused brothers were involved in an altercation at a McDonald's where one displayed a firearm.

They fled and were subsequently arrested by police near an alleyway where two loaded handguns were found under a parked van.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging breaches of their rights under ss. 7, 9, and 10, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of the firearms.

The court found a breach of s. 9 for failing to bring the accused before a justice within 24 hours, and a breach of one accused's s. 10(b) rights due to delays in contacting his counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant test, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) and refused a stay of proceedings.

On the merits, one accused was acquitted of assault due to self-defence, and the other was acquitted of pointing a firearm.

Both were found guilty of careless storage and possession of the firearms based on circumstantial evidence, with one also convicted of carrying a concealed weapon.

The accused called 911 after finding his girlfriend unconscious from a drug overdose.

After paramedics took her to the hospital, police remained in the apartment, detained the accused without advising him of his rights, and conducted a warrantless search, discovering firearms and drugs.

The court found multiple egregious Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention (s. 9), failure to provide right to counsel (s. 10), and unlawful search and seizure (s. 8).

The subsequent search warrant was quashed as it relied on tainted evidence.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the firearms and drugs due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and its impact on the accused's rights.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and conspiracy to commit murder, brought an application to exclude evidence seized during multiple warrantless searches.

The court found the warrantless entry at 10 York Street was justified by exigent circumstances to prevent a planned shooting.

The warrantless entry at 88 Harbour Street and the seizure of a vehicle breached section 8 of the Charter, but the evidence was admitted under section 24(2).

However, the search of a bedroom at 15 Danum Road involved egregious Charter breaches, including a violation of the right to counsel and an invalid consent, leading the court to exclude the drugs and cash found there.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date of arrest to the anticipated end of the trial was 50.5 months.

After deducting 1.25 months for defence delay, the net delay was 49.25 months, well above the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown argued that the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic should be deducted as an exceptional circumstance.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the trial could not have proceeded during the pandemic period in any event due to the Crown's failure to provide timely disclosure.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The applicant, previously acquitted by a jury in Bermuda of conspiracy to import fentanyl, applied for a stay of proceedings on a Canadian charge of criminal negligence causing bodily harm arising from the same events.

The applicant argued that issue estoppel applied because the Bermudan jury must have decided issues in his favour that would preclude a conviction in Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish the identity of issues requirement, as the Bermudan jury's verdict could have been based on factors unrelated to the elements of the Canadian charge.

The Crown brought an application for certiorari with mandamus in aid to quash a preliminary hearing judge's decision committing the accused to stand trial for conspiracy to commit theft rather than conspiracy to commit robbery.

The Crown argued the judge impermissibly weighed evidence and failed to consider the whole of the evidence, specifically wiretap intercepts suggesting the accused was armed with a firearm.

The Superior Court found no error in the judge's handling of competing inferences but concluded the judge committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence regarding the firearm.

The matter was remitted to the preliminary hearing judge for reconsideration.

The applicants, facing charges related to methamphetamine production, brought pre-trial motions to exclude evidence obtained from search warrants and covert video surveillance.

The police had installed a surveillance camera on a neighbouring building to monitor the rear parking lot of a commercial property suspected to be a meth lab.

The court held that the applicants had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the commercial parking lot, and thus no warrant was required for the video surveillance.

The court also upheld the validity of the search warrants and found that the dynamic 'no-knock' entry into the residence was justified by safety and evidence preservation concerns.

The applications were dismissed.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's post-offence travel to Bermuda as circumstantial evidence in a trial for exporting fentanyl.

The accused objected, arguing the evidence was more prejudicial than probative and invited moral prejudice based on religion and economic status.

The court found the travel records relevant as part of a matrix of circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the offence.

The court dismissed the accused's arguments regarding prejudice, concluding that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any minimal prejudicial effect, and ruled the evidence admissible.

The appellant appealed her conviction for driving with a blood alcohol level over 80mg.

She argued the trial judge erred in allowing the Crown to recall a witness, in finding she was the driver, and in finding reasonable and probable grounds for her arrest.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's procedural discretion, factual findings on identification, or conclusion that objective grounds existed for the arrest.

The court also upheld the trial judge's alternative finding that the breath samples would be admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter even if a breach had occurred.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the investigating officer gave inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence connecting the accused to the apartment where the alleged murder weapon was found.

The defence applied for a mistrial.

The trial judge dismissed the application, finding that the Crown's case on identity was overwhelming even without the knife evidence, and that a strong mid-trial instruction to the jury to disregard the inadmissible evidence was sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

The accused was subsequently convicted by the jury.

The applicant sought a review of his detention order based on a material change in circumstances after resolving subsequent charges incurred while on bail.

Although the court agreed the resolution of the subsequent charges constituted a material change, it dismissed the application.

The court found that the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, and the overwhelming strength of the Crown's case demonstrated a substantial likelihood that he would reoffend, making his continued detention necessary on the secondary ground.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal for trial on a charge of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the preliminary hearing judge committed jurisdictional error by drawing speculative inferences about his knowledge and control of the drugs found in his vehicle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the circumstantial evidence, including intercepted communications and his role as the driver, reasonably supported inferences of knowledge and joint possession.

The court concluded there was some evidence upon which a jury could rationally convict.

The applicant brought an application for certiorari to quash his committal for trial on a charge of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued that the preliminary hearing judge improperly admitted hearsay evidence and that the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to support a committal.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, holding that evidentiary rulings are questions of law not reviewable on certiorari, and that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference of guilt could be drawn.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences following a shooting and subsequent police pursuit.

At trial, the defence brought several Charter applications alleging excessive use of force by the Emergency Task Force during the arrest, an unlawful roadside strip search, excessive force during transport, and a delay in providing rights to counsel.

The court dismissed all applications, finding that the force used was necessary and reasonable given the accused's resistance and the dangerous circumstances.

The court also held that the roadside search was a lawful pat-down, not a strip search, and that the brief delay in advising the accused of his rights was justified by exigent circumstances including officer safety and the need for immediate medical assessment.

A minor breach of s. 10(b) occurred when officers asked questions before rights were given, but no evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with attempted murder and related firearms offences following a shooting.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, as the accused was arrested shortly after the shooting in possession of the firearm used.

The court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter or a party to the offence.

However, the court found the accused knowingly assisted the shooter by fleeing with the weapon.

The court amended the indictment to conform to the evidence and convicted the accused of being an accessory after the fact to discharging a firearm with intent to wound.