Nancy J. Spies

The accused was charged with multiple robberies and firearms offences.

At the outset of his trial, he brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) rights, seeking to exclude a firearm, ammunition, and a cell phone seized upon his arrest.

The accused argued that the police lacked reasonable grounds for his warrantless arrest and that his right to counsel was unjustifiably suspended while police obtained a search warrant for his residence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the arresting officer had subjective and objective reasonable grounds to arrest the accused based on a constellation of factors linking him to the robberies.

The court also held that the 11-hour suspension of the accused's right to counsel was justified by officer and public safety concerns regarding an outstanding firearm, and that the accused failed to exercise due diligence in contacting counsel thereafter.

As no Charter breaches were established, the evidence was not excluded.

The applicant, charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and firearms offences, sought release on a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The proposed release plan involved a single surety who could not provide 24/7 supervision.

The court found that while continued detention was not justified on the secondary ground, it was justified on the tertiary ground.

The serious nature of the charges, combined with a weak release plan that left the applicant unsupervised for periods of time, meant that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after 6.79 grams of a fentanyl/heroin mix was found on his person.

The Crown sought a sentence of 4.5 years, while the defence sought time served of 3.5 years.

The court considered the offender's difficult background, schizophrenia, and status as an addict trafficker, alongside the highly dangerous nature of fentanyl.

The court imposed a sentence of 3.5 years (credited as time served) followed by 2 years of probation with strict conditions to address his mental health and addiction issues.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after police found 19.07 grams of heroin in a safe inside an apartment he frequented.

The accused testified that he had obtained the safe for a friend to secure her belongings and did not know it contained heroin.

The friend testified and corroborated his account, admitting the heroin was hers.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the defence witnesses credible and their explanations reasonable, raising a reasonable doubt as to the accused's knowledge and possession of the drugs.

The accused was found not guilty.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial, the court convicted the defendant of sexual assault with another person, choking to enable sexual assault, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, and assault arising from multiple assaults in the complainant's apartment over several hours.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the defendant's evidence of consensual intercourse and accepted the complainant's evidence despite some sequencing errors and omissions in her police statement.

The court relied on corroborative circumstantial evidence including the state of the bedroom, surveillance footage of an attempted escape and locked apartment door, injuries, prayer-related clothing, and DNA evidence linking both men to genital and anal swabs.

The publication ban protecting the complainant's identity remains in force.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences following the execution of a search warrant at his apartment.

He admitted to possessing 6.79 grams of fentanyl found on his person, but denied possessing other drugs and a restricted firearm found in the apartment.

A defence witness testified that the apartment drugs and firearm belonged to her and that she had hidden them there without the accused's knowledge.

The court found the accused guilty of possessing the fentanyl on his person for the purpose of trafficking, citing the quantity and indicia of trafficking.

However, applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the defence witness's testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding the items found in the apartment, resulting in acquittals on the remaining charges.

The defendants were convicted of multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and wearing a disguise, arising from a series of ATM robberies.

The defendants brought a Charter challenge arguing that the mandatory consecutive minimum sentences under s. 85(4) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding it was bound by appellate authority and that the sentences were not grossly disproportionate for the offenders or a reasonable hypothetical offender.

The court also rejected a request to artificially allocate the sentences to avoid collateral immigration consequences for one of the defendants.

Both defendants were sentenced to a global term of 7 years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The offender pleaded guilty to five counts of fraud over $5,000 for evading personal and corporate income taxes and failing to remit GST/HST, totaling over $1.6 million.

The court accepted a joint submission for a penitentiary sentence of two and one-half years.

The court also found that the offender had misappropriated and hidden significant cash, establishing her ability to pay a fine.

A fine of $833,238 was imposed, with five and one-half years to pay.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault causing bodily harm, attempting to choke, forcible confinement, and uttering a threat to cause death against a sex trade worker.

The court considered the brutal and unprovoked nature of the attack, the vulnerability of the complainant, and the severe physical and psychological impact.

The court also considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, family support, and the potential collateral consequence of deportation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 6 years' imprisonment, less 10 months of pre-sentence credit, leaving 5 years and 2 months to serve.

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, was convicted of sexual assault.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the complainant's extreme intoxication and vulnerability, the unprotected intercourse, and the significant impact on the complainant.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's youth, difficult upbringing, expressed remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation while in custody.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the Defence sought a time-served sentence of two years less one day, arguing for enhanced pre-sentence custody credit due to harsh lockdown conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court applied a sentencing range of three to five years for serious sexual assault, found a three-year sentence appropriate, and granted pre-sentence custody credit, including an enhanced "Duncan credit" for lockdowns and a small additional credit for limited programming due to COVID-19.

The final sentence was three years in custody, reduced by two years and five months of pre-sentence credit, leaving seven months to serve, followed by two years of probation and several ancillary orders.

In a judge-alone historical sexual assault trial, the Crown sought to adduce evidence that the complainant, as a child, engaged in sexual touching with her younger brother while making statements allegedly linking that conduct to what the accused had shown her.

The court held that Crown-led evidence of the complainant's other sexual activity remained subject to common law screening analogous to s. 276 principles and admitted the conduct because it did not invite twin-myth reasoning and had probative value outweighing prejudice.

The alleged statements were admitted as pure narrative and as narrative as circumstantial evidence to explain delayed disclosure, rebut fabrication, and assist in assessing in-court testimony, but not for the truth of their contents.

The court found the principled hearsay exception did not apply because admission for truth was not reasonably necessary and would offend the rule against prior consistent statements.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence charges arising from allegations that he sexually abused a child relative at family gatherings in the early 1980s.

The court conducted a detailed credibility assessment of the complainant, the accused, and several family witnesses, including consideration of delay in disclosure, prior statements, and evidence from the complainant's brother about separate sexual touching between siblings.

Applying the child-witness guidance in W.(R.) and the burden-of-proof framework in W.(D.), the court found significant difficulties with aspects of both the complainant's and the accused's evidence.

The surrounding evidence did not sufficiently corroborate the allegations, and alternative explanations remained reasonably available.

The Crown therefore failed to prove any count beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against his former intimate partner.

He failed to attend his sentencing hearing and was found to have absconded, leading the court to proceed in absentia under s. 475 of the Criminal Code.

The court appointed amicus curiae to address conflicting Court of Appeal precedents regarding sentencing ranges for sexual assault (Smith for intimate partners vs. Bradley for non-partners).

The court found the lower range for intimate partners in Smith irreconcilable with the higher range in Bradley, concluding there is no principled reason to treat intimate partner sexual assault less severely.

Applying the statutory aggravating factors of intimate partner abuse and breach of trust, the court sentenced the accused to a total of 3.5 years in custody.

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, convicted of sexual assault, applied for interim release pending his sentencing hearing under s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The application was brought after a prior detention order and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding a substantial likelihood that the defendant would reoffend, particularly by breaching curfew and committing further serious offences against vulnerable women, given his history of alcohol-related breaches and the nature of his convictions.

The court acknowledged the importance of out-of-custody assessments for sentencing but prioritized public safety.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction and sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a W.D. analysis, providing insufficient reasons regarding self-defence, and failing to impose a conditional discharge.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, faithfully applied the substance of W.D. principles, and reasonably concluded that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest given the violent nature of the assault and the need for general deterrence.

The applicant, Shaheed Bacchus Ali, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for 22 charges, including firearms and drug trafficking.

The application was based on two material changes: a stronger release plan with 24/7 surety supervision and GPS monitoring, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the improved supervision plan adequately addressed secondary ground concerns regarding reoffending.

On the tertiary ground, while the Crown's case was strong and the charges serious, the court balanced these factors against the heightened risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities and the viability of the proposed release plan.

The court granted judicial interim release with strict conditions, including house arrest, GPS monitoring, and self-isolation.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a decade-long, four-action litigation where Romandale Farms Limited was the successful party.

Romandale sought substantial indemnity costs against Fram and Kerbel (and their associated entities).

The court found that Fram and Kerbel's conduct throughout the litigation was "reprehensible and deserving of sanction" including pursuing meritless claims for tactical reasons, making disingenuous arguments, and principals giving false evidence.

The court awarded Romandale substantial indemnity costs of $2,708,651.57, inclusive of fees and disbursements, payable jointly and severally by Fram and Kerbel, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the complexity, stakes, and the losing parties' conduct.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of robbery, attempted robbery, conspiracy, and weapons offences related to a series of ATM robberies in Toronto.

The Crown relied on similar fact evidence, including distinctive clothing worn by the perpetrators, to link the defendants to the earlier robberies after they were arrested during an attempted ATM robbery.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess the defendants' testimony and the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence.

The court rejected the defendants' explanations, found the circumstantial evidence of identity compelling, and convicted both defendants on all remaining counts.

The defendant, Raby Shahin, was charged with three counts of sexual assault, one count of forcible confinement, and one count of criminal harassment.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant (P.B.) and the defendant.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding her relationship with the defendant, her voluntary contact with him, and the details of the alleged assaults, particularly concerning where she was sleeping during two alleged incidents.

The court also noted the complainant's evasiveness and argumentative demeanor during cross-examination.

While acknowledging that post-assault conduct should not lead to adverse inferences based on stereotypes, the court found the complainant's attempts to distance herself from the defendant not credible.

Conversely, the defendant's testimony was found to be generally forthright, despite some confusion regarding evidence extraction.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

The offender, an 18-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing two victims in a vehicle.

The offender argued for a non-custodial or short reformatory sentence, citing his need for upcoming abdominal surgery due to a prior gunshot wound.

The court found that correctional facilities could adequately accommodate his medical needs and that the severity of the unprovoked, premeditated attack required a penitentiary sentence.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 33 months in custody, less pre-sentence credit.