Morrie Adam Luft

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a shooting outside a party venue.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the recognition identification evidence of a police officer who identified the accused as the shooter from poor-quality surveillance videos, based on a single prior traumatic encounter.

The court admitted the officer's recognition evidence but ultimately gave it little weight due to reliability concerns, including the poor quality of the images and the lack of distinctive features.

After conducting its own comparison of the accused with the video images, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the shooter's identity and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The accused, Frederick Leon, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for second-degree murder due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating total delay, defence delay, and considering exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on trial scheduling.

The court found that after deducting defence delay and pandemic-related delay, the net delay fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, Jeremy Menary, brought a motion to sever three criminal charges on an indictment: possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking (Count 2), possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (Count 1), and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (Count 3).

Menary sought a jury trial only on the fentanyl charge, intending to not contest the cocaine and firearm charges by filing an agreed statement of facts to preserve his right to appeal a prior Charter application ruling.

The court granted the severance, finding that the prejudice to the accused outweighed the public interest in a single trial, particularly given the accused's desire to testify on one count but not others, and the simplification of the jury trial on the contested count.

The court ordered that the findings of guilt on the uncontested counts would be entered before the jury trial on the fentanyl charge commenced.

The accused, Jeremy Menary, faced criminal charges related to the possession of a loaded handgun, cash, and various drugs found during his arrest.

He brought a Charter application to exclude all evidence under section 24(2), alleging violations of his sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) rights.

The defence argued that the arrest for impaired driving was a pretext to justify an unlawful search.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no violations.

It held that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired driving, which lawfully preceded the search.

The court also found that the brief pre-arrest detention was justified under section 216(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for investigating sobriety and vehicle authorization, thus not triggering immediate section 10 Charter rights.

The applicant sought a bail review after being denied interim release on charges including break and enter, possession of a loaded firearm, and possession of fentanyl.

The applicant proposed a strict house arrest plan with electronic monitoring and two sureties pledging $30,000.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the bail review, finding that the proposed plan adequately addressed the secondary ground of public safety and that the tertiary ground did not require detention, as there was no evidence the firearm was used in the commission of the offences.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused for trial on charges of attempted murder and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The charges arose after one of the accused was robbed of drugs and money, prompting him to obtain a firearm and travel with the co-accused to the city where the robbers were located, before being intercepted by police.

The court found sufficient evidence of joint possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking based on intercepted communications and the circumstances of their arrest.

However, the court discharged the accused on the attempted murder charge, finding that travelling to the city with a loaded firearm was mere preparation and not sufficiently proximate to constitute the actus reus of attempted murder.

The applicant, Andrew White, sought a declaration that electronic messages exchanged between himself and the complainant, A.S., and in a group chat with A.S. and her mother, were not "records" under s. 278.92(1) of the Criminal Code.

This determination was crucial to avoid the requirement of an application under s. 278.93 for their use at trial.

The court, following the procedure established in R. v. W.M., reviewed the messages and applied a normative analysis to determine if the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Considering the innocuous content, the manner of communication, the nature of the relationship (even with a minor complainant), and policy implications, the court concluded that the messages did not contain personal information for which there was a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the application was granted, and the messages were deemed not to be "records" under the Criminal Code.

Rachard Holder was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, pointing a firearm, and intentionally discharging a firearm, and by the judge of possession of a firearm contrary to an order.

The charges stemmed from a premeditated shotgun shooting of Steven Cseko, who had intervened in a domestic dispute.

The victim suffered catastrophic, permanent injuries.

The Crown sought a life sentence, while the defence proposed ten years.

The court found the shooting to be cold-blooded and senseless, with a lack of remorse from the offender, indicating a high likelihood of future dangerousness.

Considering aggravating factors such as the offender's escalating criminal record, breach of court orders, premeditation, and the horrific impact on the victim and community, the court imposed a life sentence for attempted murder.

The convictions for pointing a firearm and intentionally discharging a firearm were stayed under the Kienapple principle.

A concurrent one-year sentence was imposed for the breach of the weapons prohibition order.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA sample, and a non-communication order with the victim and his family.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose following a violent altercation in a nightclub parking lot.

The incident began over a minor vehicle collision and escalated when the complainant armed himself with a box cutter and the accused retrieved a switchblade.

The court found that the accused acted in self-defence during the initial confrontations but committed a simple assault when he re-engaged the complainant after the threat had subsided.

The accused was acquitted of the weapons charges and aggravated assault, but convicted of the lesser included offence of simple assault.

The accused jointly applied under s. 24(1) of the Charter for a stay of proceedings on the basis that their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) had been violated.

The overall delay between arrest and scheduled trial was approximately 999 days (nearly 33 months).

Applying the analytical framework from R. v. Morin, the court assessed waiver, reasons for delay, and prejudice.

After deducting defence and neutral delay, the court found approximately 550.5 days (about 18.08 months) of Crown and institutional delay, which was only slightly above the guideline range.

Given the seriousness of the charges and the finding that most prejudice arose from the existence of the charges rather than delay itself, the court concluded the accused had not established a Charter breach.

The offender was sentenced following jury convictions for multiple offences including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and several breaches of firearms prohibition orders.

Police located drugs, cash, and a loaded handgun in a safe in an apartment connected to the offender, and cocaine in a vehicle he was driving.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving firearms and drug trafficking offences and was already subject to prohibition orders at the time.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and totality, the court imposed a global sentence of ten years’ imprisonment.

Credit of approximately 29 months was granted for pre‑sentence custody, including limited enhanced credit for triple bunking and lack of yard access.