Nancy J. Spies

The applicant, charged with robbery, applied under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude CCTV video surveillance taken from an elevator in his condominium building, which police obtained without a warrant.

The Crown conceded that if the video was excluded, the search warrant for the applicant's residence would be invalid.

The court found that the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common area elevator video, as it was apparent that security cameras were present and the observations were unobtrusive and mundane.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that s. 8 was not engaged and, alternatively, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused, charged with multiple drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings.

He alleged that police used excessive force during his arrest, resulting in a sprained ankle, and that officers stole $5,000 in cash during the search of his apartment.

The court dismissed the excessive force claim, finding the takedown was justified and the injury incidental.

However, relying on the accused's weekly drug transaction log and video evidence of the search, the court found on a balance of probabilities that police stole $5,000 from a laundry hamper.

To denounce this serious police misconduct and preserve the integrity of the justice system, the court granted a stay of all proceedings.

The defendant, previously convicted of defrauding the government of over $1.6 million in taxes and sentenced to custody and an $833,238 fine, applied for a 10-year extension to pay the balance of the fine.

The court found that the defendant had only paid a fraction of the fine despite earning a significant income and accumulating consumer debt.

Applying the inference from Topp, the court concluded the defendant still possessed hidden funds and had not provided a reasonable excuse for failing to pay.

The application was dismissed, and the defendant was found in default, permitting the Crown to pursue civil enforcement.

Sentencing for two assaults and one count of uttering threats arising from inmate-on-inmate violence in a locked jail cell.

The offender sought a conditional discharge, relying in part on psychiatric background evidence and his status as a first offender at the time, while the Crown sought short concurrent custodial terms.

The court held that although a discharge would be in the offender's personal best interests, it would be contrary to the public interest given the deliberate custodial violence, the complainant's vulnerability, the attempt to suppress reporting by force and threats, and the significant physical and psychological impact.

Concurrent three-month custodial sentences were imposed together with a secondary DNA order and a s. 743.21 non-communication order.

The defendant was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of uttering a threat to cause death against his cellmate at a detention centre.

The Crown conceded it could not prove the sexual assault as described by the complainant within the 11-second timeframe captured on CCTV.

However, the court found the complainant's evidence of an unprovoked physical attack and threats credible and corroborated by physical injuries and his panicked state.

The defendant was found guilty of the included offences of simple assault and uttering a threat to cause bodily harm.

Following a judge-alone trial, the court convicted the accused of sexual assault, trafficking in persons, receiving a material benefit from trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

The case turned largely on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, whose evidence the court accepted on the core allegations despite extensive impeachment on prior inconsistent statements, admitted lies to police on collateral matters, significant addiction issues, and drug use during testimony.

The court found that the accused exploited the complainant’s acute personal vulnerability, used deception and dependency, controlled transportation, advertising, communications, and finances, and compelled the provision of sexual services in Ontario and Quebec.

Cell phone records, escort advertisements, and other admitted evidence materially corroborated the complainant’s account.

The accused was acquitted on the imitation-handgun count.

The accused was charged with eight counts including human trafficking, receiving a financial benefit from human trafficking, procuring, receiving a material benefit from sexual services, advertising sexual services, uttering threats, assault, and assault by choking.

The Crown alleged the accused violently trafficked the complainant into the sex trade over approximately three weeks in April-May 2023, controlling her movements, finances, and communications while directing her to provide sexual services at hotels across the GTA and Barrie.

The court found the complainant's core evidence credible and reliable, corroborated by hotel records, Uber records, bank records, surveillance footage, and cryptocurrency purchase records.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person the complainant knew as "Troubles" and that he recruited, transported, harboured, and exploited the complainant for the purpose of providing sexual services.

The accused was found guilty on all eight counts.

The court sentenced Shane Campbell following his guilty plea to three firearms offences arising from a gunfight in a Toronto residential neighbourhood.

The decision details the circumstances of the offences, Campbell’s personal background, and the aggravating and mitigating factors considered.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight-and-one-half years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, but also recognizing Campbell’s remorse, family support, and the impact of systemic racism and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The offender was convicted by a jury of discharging a firearm with intent to wound, aggravated assault, and several firearms offences, including breaching a weapons prohibition order.

Following a verbal altercation outside a nightclub, the offender retrieved a loaded prohibited handgun from his vehicle and shot the victim twice in the abdomen at close range.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, and the harsh conditions of his pre-trial custody.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, consisting of 8 years concurrent for the shooting and possession offences, and 1 year consecutive for breaching the weapons prohibition order, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for criminal harassment arising from repeated text messages and voicemails sent after a brief romantic relationship ended.

He argued that the trial judge mishandled text messages with the complainant's manager and that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call that manager and for failing to press an alleged inconsistency in the complainant's evidence.

The court held that the text messages were properly authenticated but their contents remained hearsay absent the manager's testimony, and that counsel's decision not to call the witness was a reasonable tactical choice that avoided materially harmful evidence.

The court further held that any alleged inconsistency would not have displaced the overwhelming evidence of harassment, including the appellant's own recorded messages.

The appeal was dismissed.

The court considered whether Dexter Peters was a party to a violent gunpoint robbery committed by his younger half-brother, J.M., in Toronto.

The Crown alleged Peters conspired with J.M. or aided and abetted the robbery, relying on circumstantial evidence including video surveillance, the presence of a GPS tracker on the victim’s car, and Peters’ conduct before, during, and after the offence.

The defence argued there were reasonable inferences consistent with innocence, including that Peters was unaware of J.M.’s plan and did not assist in the robbery.

The court found the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Peters was a party to the offence, emphasizing the need for more than mere presence at the scene.

Peters was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, possession of proceeds of crime, and conspiracy to commit fraud.

The charges arose from his role as CEO of a subsidiary company that contracted IT professionals for a bank project.

The contractors experienced delayed and unpaid invoices, which the Crown alleged the accused facilitated by lying about the reasons for the delays.

The court found that the accused reasonably relied on the parent company's CFO and operations team for financial matters and did not have actual knowledge of, nor was he wilfully blind to, the fraud perpetrated by the CFO.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The defendant, Tyler Willan, was charged with arson as an aider under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code, for assisting in the burning of a Honda Accord used in a murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including video chronology of the Honda and Willan's Outlander, the purchase of gas in a Jerry Can, and the movements of the alleged perpetrators (Male 1 and Male 2).

The court found that Male 1 and Male 2 committed arson by intentionally burning the Honda, which was not wholly owned by them, to destroy evidence related to a murder.

The court concluded that Willan aided the arson by driving Male 1 and Male 2 from the burn site back to Oshawa, having known about the Jerry Can and the purpose of the trip.

Willan was found guilty.

I.C. was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference against his stepdaughter, A.W., relating to a "Horsey Incident" that occurred between 2008 and 2010.

The sexual assault charge was conditionally stayed.

The court, in this Part 2 sentencing decision, determined a fit sentence after re-evaluating facts based on the "Horsey Incident" only.

Aggravating factors included the breach of trust, the complainant's young age (8-10), the incident occurring in the family home, physical restraint, and the significant impact on the complainant and her mother.

Mitigating factors included I.C. being a first offender, having no criminal record, a low risk of re-offence, and being gainfully employed.

The Crown sought 18 months to 2 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or intermittent incarceration.

The court, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in *Friesen* and the Ontario Court of Appeal's guidance on conditional sentences for child sexual offences, imposed a 10-month custodial sentence, along with various ancillary orders, including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and a s. 161 prohibition order with an exception for biological daughters subject to family court approval.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Zhuxi Xi Shen, who was convicted of sexual assault after a judge-alone trial.

The court found that Mr. Shen sexually assaulted the complainant twice: once while she was incapacitated and again after she awoke, without her consent.

The assaults were premeditated, and the complainant suffered profound physical and psychological harm.

The Crown sought a five-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed three years, effectively time served.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainant's vulnerability, premeditation, and the severe impact on the victim, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of criminal record, youth, and compliance with bail conditions.

The court also addressed pre-sentence custody credits (Summers, Downes, and Duncan), particularly the harsh conditions experienced in detention.

A sentence of four years and one month was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, along with mandatory ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition, DNA order, Sex Offender Registry compliance, and a no-contact order.

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of sexual interference and sexual assault against his stepdaughter.

Because the jury's verdict was ambiguous regarding which of the two alleged incidents they found proven, the sentencing judge was required to make independent findings of fact for the purpose of sentencing.

Applying the Ferguson framework, the court assessed the credibility of the witnesses and found the first incident proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but harboured a reasonable doubt regarding the second incident.

The court directed counsel to provide further submissions on sentence based on these factual findings.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded restricted firearm after police found a handgun in an apartment rented by his girlfriend.

The Crown's case relied on the accused's fingerprints on the firearm and statements made by the girlfriend to police upon her arrest, claiming the gun belonged to the accused.

The court found the girlfriend's evidence and statements to be unreliable and lacking credibility.

The court held that the fingerprint evidence alone, without corroborating evidence of the accused's presence in the apartment or knowledge of the firearm's character, was insufficient to establish constructive possession.

The accused was found not guilty.

The Toronto Police Service brought an application without notice for the further detention of seized items under s. 490(3) of the Criminal Code and for a sealing order under s. 487.3.

The court held that it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application without notice, despite the statutory requirement for three days' notice, to prevent the absurdity of jeopardizing an ongoing, complex investigation.

The court also granted the sealing order, interpreting s. 487.3 broadly to apply to s. 490(3) applications to protect the integrity of the investigation.

Following a judge-alone conviction for sexual assault, the applicant sought a mistrial based on late disclosure of the Information to Obtain for a warrant authorizing the search of seized electronic devices and on an alleged unconstitutional search of his iPhone.

The court held that prior defence counsel had not exercised due diligence in requesting that the sealed ITO be unsealed and disclosed, and further held that any alleged prejudice could be addressed by hearing the s. 8 application on its merits.

Applying the governing principles for computer and cell phone searches, the court found that the warrant authorized the impugned search, that the full extraction created a forensic container without itself intruding on privacy, and that the subsequent review of the extracted data was conducted reasonably and in good faith within the warrant's scope.

The court therefore dismissed the s. 8 application, found no s. 7 breach, and refused to declare a mistrial.

The applicant, Teshome Daste Adane, sought a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay under ss. 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing the total delay of 45 months exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court proceedings established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the timeline, attributing significant portions of the delay to both the Crown (for disclosure delays) and the defence (for not diligently pursuing a Judicial Pre-trial and not choosing the earliest trial date due to a planned trip).

After subtracting periods attributable to defence conduct and exceptional circumstances (delay in arrest due to the applicant being abroad, and the COVID-19 pandemic), the net delay fell below the 30-month ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, as the court found no basis to exercise its residual discretion.