Nancy J. Spies

The accused was charged with four counts of possessing explosive substances and one count of counselling mischief not committed, arising from his activities prior to the G20 Summit in Toronto.

Police found various chemicals and laboratory equipment in his home, which the Crown alleged were intended to make explosive substances.

The accused maintained the chemicals were for innocent purposes, including amateur rocketry, gardening, and testing the security system.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to create explosive substances, accepting that his interest in rocketry and other hobbies raised a reasonable doubt.

On the counselling charge, the court found the accused's tweets about design flaws in the G20 security fence merely described how mischief could be committed but did not actively induce or advocate the commission of the offence.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with five counts of sexual assault and related offences against his 12-year-old sister-in-law.

The allegations included unwanted kissing, touching, and forced fellatio.

The accused testified and denied all allegations.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility.

While finding the complainant's evidence of kissing and touching could reasonably be true, the court noted inconsistencies, delayed disclosure, and implausibilities regarding the more serious allegations.

The court concluded the evidence as a whole raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The accused brought a global application under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude all evidence obtained during the investigation, including chemicals and equipment seized from his home pursuant to valid search warrants.

The court found multiple Charter breaches throughout the investigation, including arbitrary detention, right to counsel violations, and search and seizure violations.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the police conduct was not in bad faith or part of a systemic disregard for Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was sentenced following convictions for multiple firearms offences arising from possession of a loaded restricted handgun in a motor vehicle while subject to several weapons prohibition orders.

The court considered sentencing ranges for possession of loaded handguns and emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the dangers posed by firearms in the Greater Toronto Area.

Significant aggravating factors included the accused’s extensive criminal record, repeated breaches of court orders, and possession of the loaded firearm in a vehicle with other occupants.

Mitigating factors included the accused’s youth, family support, and employment prospects.

The court imposed a global custodial sentence of five years consisting of four years for the firearms offences and a consecutive one-year term for breach of a weapons prohibition order, with ancillary orders including DNA collection and forfeiture.

The accused, arrested in relation to the G20 summit, was interviewed by intelligence officers before being permitted to speak to counsel, resulting in a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

He subsequently gave two videotaped statements to an investigating detective.

The court held that the first videotaped statement was not tainted by the earlier Charter breach and was voluntary, despite a breach of s. 503(1)(a) of the Criminal Code for failing to bring him before a justice within 24 hours.

However, the court found that a portion of the second videotaped statement was involuntary and inadmissible because the detective offered a quid pro quo regarding bail for the accused's wife and created oppressive circumstances by suggesting the accused was being investigated by national security forces.

The accused brought an application under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence found on computers seized from his residence, arguing his s. 8 rights were infringed.

The search warrants authorized a search of computers for records relating to the production of explosives but did not expressly authorize the seizure of the computers.

The police seized the computers and searched the entire hard drives off-site.

The court found that the seizure of the computers violated s. 8, as the police could not rely on the plain view doctrine or s. 489 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court held that the cursory search of the entire hard drives was reasonable and not overbroad.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the Charter breaches were not serious, had little impact on the accused's protected interests, and the evidence was reliable and important to the Crown's case.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

In a criminal proceeding, the defence sought exclusion under section 24(2) of Charter evidence obtained through production orders for credit-card and phone records.

After Garofoli-related excisions and limited amplification, the court held the information to obtain did not support the TD Visa production order and found a section 8 breach for those records.

Applying R. v. Grant, the court found good-faith state conduct and a moderate informational-privacy impact, while emphasizing the reliability and trial importance of the records.

Balancing the Grant factors, the court declined to exclude the Visa records.

The defence exclusion application was dismissed, subject to the broader global section 24(2) ruling.

The accused challenged the facial validity of two search warrants executed at his residence following a Garofoli ruling that some offences listed in the warrants were unsupported by the Information to Obtain.

The accused argued that the entire warrants must be quashed because the unsupported offences rendered the warrants invalid and could not be cured by severance.

The Crown submitted that the unsupported portions could be severed, leaving valid authorizations.

The court reviewed the doctrine of severability in the context of search warrants and held that where the invalid portions are clearly separable and not vital to the authorization, they may be excised without invalidating the remainder.

The court concluded that the unsupported offences and related items could be severed and that the remaining portions of the warrants constituted valid authorizations.

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 application following a Garofoli review seeking to exclude evidence obtained through search warrants executed at his residence.

The court addressed two reserved issues: whether the Information to Obtain properly supported a charge of intimidation of a justice system participant by “watching” police officers, and whether computers were properly included as items to be searched in a second warrant.

The court held that public online posts concerning dismantling G20 security fencing, combined with derogatory postings of police photographs, could reasonably support an inference that the accused intended to provoke fear in the general public.

The court further held that the discovery of chemical precursors, laboratory equipment, documents, and the accused’s extensive internet use provided reasonable grounds to search computers for records relating to the production of explosives.

The warrants were therefore properly supported.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences after police stopped a vehicle following a radio report that a rear passenger was possibly armed.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 9, arguing the vehicle stop constituted arbitrary detention and that a flashlight examination of the vehicle interior was an unlawful search.

The court held the accused was not detained in the brief period between the vehicle stop and the observation of a firearm and that the flashlight observation did not constitute a search under s. 8.

The Charter application was dismissed.

Accepting the evidence of police officers that the accused was holding a loaded restricted firearm in his lap before it fell to the floor of the vehicle, the court found possession proven beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused on all counts.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal from a decision of the Ontario Municipal Board, the respondent Ministry of Natural Resources sought partial indemnity costs.

The Divisional Court found the requested amount of $8,034.09 to be reasonable and ordered it payable forthwith.

On consent, the respondent County of Haldimand was awarded costs of $2,500.

The applicant withdrew its application for judicial review after its related appeal was dismissed.

The Crown sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The Divisional Court found that the judicial review application was unnecessary and constituted re-litigation of issues already decided by multiple bodies.

The court awarded the Crown $10,000 in fees and $4,000 in disbursements on a substantial indemnity scale.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Municipal Board regarding the revocation of a licence, arguing the Board erred in law by failing to understand that the revocation was tainted by prior allegedly unlawful actions by the Ministry.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's decision and noting that the Board's conclusion that the appellant was not in compliance with licence conditions was a finding of fact that could not be disturbed.