Naomi M. Lutes

The applicants, charged with offences under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, brought a motion for a stay of proceedings alleging their s. 11(b) Charter rights to be tried within a reasonable time were infringed.

The total delay from charges to the anticipated end of trial was 44 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework, confirming a 30-month presumptive ceiling for matters proceeding by preferred indictment in the Superior Court.

After deducting defence delay and time attributed to the extradition process as a discrete event (minus a period for Crown lack of diligence), the net delay was calculated at 27 months for one applicant and 26 months and 3 weeks for the other.

As the net delay fell below the 30-month ceiling and the case was particularly complex, the court dismissed the stay applications.

The offender pleaded guilty to production of marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A Gardiner hearing was held to resolve factual disputes regarding the extent of the grow operation.

The offender acknowledged growing 250 marijuana plants in his residence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 3 years' probation, with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA profiling order.

The sentencing considered the offender's chronic health conditions, medical authorization for cannabis use, lack of commercial motive, prior 1998 conviction for the same offence, and 14-year crime-free period since that conviction.

Appellants were convicted of two counts of hindering or obstructing a provincial offences officer contrary to section 42(1) of the Nutrient Management Act.

The appellants parked their truck directly in front of Ministry of the Environment inspectors' truck, blocking its exit, and refused multiple requests to move.

The appellants appealed their convictions arguing the actus reus was not proven and that they exercised due diligence.

The court dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding that the appellants' actions constituted obstruction and that they failed to establish a due diligence defence, as their belief that the officers were trespassing was based on a mistake of law and was not reasonably held in the circumstances.

This is a retrial following a successful appeal in a criminal case involving six charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against the defendant MCJ.

The charges involved three complainants: LJ (alleged offences between December 5, 1987 and December 5, 1992), KJ (alleged offences between June 15 and September 10, 2007), and LH (alleged offences in 1998 and July 23, 2005).

The defendant was the uncle of two complainants and the uncle of the mother of the third complainant.

The trial judge found that while the complainants were credible in their sincerity, their evidence was not reliable to the requisite degree due to numerous material inconsistencies, evolving allegations, and implausibilities.

All charges were dismissed.

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to three innocent third parties following the Crown's unsuccessful forfeiture application under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties without evidence of complicity or collusion by the owners.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, including failure to conduct proper disclosure, misrepresentation to the Superior Court regarding mortgage law, and proceeding with a meritless application.

The court awarded substantial costs to FirstOntario and reduced costs to Fercan and GRVN, considering factors including proportionality, duplication of services, and the applicants' own litigation positions.

The Crown appealed acquittals on charges of acting as livestock dealers without a licence contrary to the Livestock and Livestock Products Act.

The accused purchased and sold approximately 2,156 cattle for $1,367,000 and sold 2,811 cattle for approximately $1,619,000 over an 11-week period in 2007.

The trial judge found the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused were engaged in the business of buying or selling livestock, as opposed to operating as livestock producers.

The appellate court upheld the acquittals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

The applicants sought revocation of two restraint orders issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and return of property proceeds held by the Seized Property Management Directorate Branch.

The Crown had previously dismissed its forfeiture application after over 35 days of hearings, finding no evidence of complicity or collusion on the part of the applicants.

The court granted the application, ordering revocation of the restraint orders and distribution of the remaining proceeds pursuant to a consent order among the interested parties.

The court rejected the Crown's request for a 90-day adjournment to allow the Civil Remedies Office to investigate whether to commence separate proceedings, finding such a referral constituted an abuse of process and an attempt to relitigate issues already determined.

The Crown sought forfeiture of two properties under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following the discovery of sophisticated marijuana grow operations.

The first property, a former Molson Brewery plant in Barrie, contained two large indoor grow operations operated by individuals convicted of production and trafficking offences.

The second property was a residential dwelling in Phelpston owned by a company controlled by the respondent's brother.

The Crown alleged that the property owners and their corporations were complicit in or colluded with the drug offences.

The respondents argued they were innocent third parties unaware of the illegal activities occurring on their properties.

The Crown appealed from the respondent's acquittal on a charge of counselling the commission of murder.

The respondent, a victim of severe spousal abuse, had attempted to hire a hit man to kill her husband.

The trial judge acquitted on the basis of the common law defence of duress.

The Supreme Court held that duress requires compulsion to commit a specific offence and is not available where threats were not made for the purpose of compelling the commission of an offence.

However, given the uncertainty in the law, the Crown's change of position between trial and appeal, and the exceptional circumstances, a stay of proceedings was entered rather than ordering a new trial.

Fish J. dissented in part, favouring a new trial over a stay.

The applicants, Fercan Developments Inc. and GRVN Group Inc., challenged the constitutional validity of sections 16 and 19 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which permit courts to order forfeiture of offence-related property.

The applicants raised three constitutional questions: whether the forfeiture provisions were ultra vires Parliament as relating to property and civil rights; whether they violated section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 by conferring jurisdiction on provincial courts; and whether they violated the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The court upheld the constitutional validity of all challenged provisions, finding that forfeiture is a valid exercise of Parliament's criminal law power, that the Ontario Court of Justice may constitutionally exercise forfeiture jurisdiction, and that procedural safeguards meet Bill of Rights requirements.