Natasha Calvinho

The Ontario Review Board held a hearing to review the restriction of the accused's liberty following his elopement from an approved community accommodation.

The accused, who was subject to a disposition for breaking and entering, had relapsed into substance use and was found by police in a decompensated state.

Due to a lack of beds at his designated hospital, he was temporarily transferred to another facility, resulting in a restriction of liberty exceeding seven days.

The Board found that the restriction was justified, necessary, and the least onerous option available to ensure public safety and meet the accused's mental health needs.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused's Detention Disposition.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and break and enter, had been progressing well in 24-hour supervised housing until a recent incident involving the abuse of prescription medication and a lack of transparency with the treatment team regarding an inappropriate relationship with a former staff member.

The Board accepted the hospital's expert evidence that the accused's risk had elevated to moderate.

The Board concluded that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety and ordered the continuation of the Detention Disposition, modifying it to require supervised accommodation rather than 24-hour supervision, and granting expanded day passes.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for assault and referred to the Ontario Review Board for an initial disposition.

The accused, who suffers from bipolar affective disorder and a mild intellectual disability, assaulted a nurse while experiencing a manic episode.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to a high risk of medication non-compliance and decompensation if discharged without supportive housing and community psychiatric care.

A detention order was imposed.

The accused, Patrick King, was sentenced for offences including mischief, counselling mischief, counselling obstruction of police, and disobeying a court order arising from his leadership role in the 2022 "Freedom Convoy" protest in Ottawa.

The Crown sought a ten-year prison sentence, arguing the protest constituted an unprecedented occupation of the nation's capital, while the defence argued for time served and probation.

Justice Hackland rejected the Crown's position, noting that while the protest caused significant community harm, a ten-year sentence was disproportionate and lacked precedent.

The court sentenced the accused to a total of 12 months, consisting of nine months of pre-sentence credit and a three-month conditional sentence, followed by 12 months of probation.

Criminal trial arising from the accused’s role in the downtown Ottawa convoy occupation in early 2022.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was an organizer, leader, and online influencer who counselled and participated in mischief by encouraging blockades, horn honking, resistance to police efforts to clear the area, and later breaches of an injunction prohibiting the use of air horns and train horns.

The court acquitted on intimidation counts, holding the specific intent required by s. 423 of the Criminal Code was not established because the pressure tactics were directed at changing government policy rather than intimidating identified persons within the meaning of the provision.

The accused was convicted of counselling obstruction of police but acquitted of personal obstruction, and the defence of officially induced error was rejected for lack of an air of reality.

The accused, Paul Needham, was charged with one count of sexual assault on his former spouse.

The case involved diametrically opposed accounts of a sexual encounter on January 10, 2019, while the parties were co-habiting post-separation.

The Crown argued the complainant said "no" and "don't," while the accused claimed consensual oral sex initiated by the complainant.

The court assessed credibility and reliability under the W.(D.) framework, finding the accused's testimony credible and reliable.

The court concluded that the accused's actions, based on his accepted account, did not constitute sexual assault, as there was communicated consent through gestures and verbal requests, and he stopped when consent was clearly withdrawn.

The court set aside its previous decision summarily dismissing the applicant's change of venue application.

The original dismissal was based on judicial comity and an assessment of the merits, which the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Haevischer (2023 SCC 11) now prohibits at the summary dismissal stage.

The court found that the application's factual basis required a hearing to determine if the threshold for a change of venue was met, as it was not "manifestly frivolous." The applicant is permitted to bring his application afresh.

Patrick King, charged in connection with the "Freedom Convoy" applied for a change of venue from Ottawa, arguing he could not receive a fair trial due to local prejudice and extensive prejudicial media coverage.

The court dismissed the application, citing the principle of judicial comity and deferring to a prior decision in R v. Bauder, 2023 ONSC 996, which addressed similar concerns regarding pretrial publicity and local bias for "Freedom Convoy" cases.

The court affirmed that standard procedural safeguards during jury selection are sufficient to ensure a fair trial.

Jacques Trudel was found guilty of possession of over two kilograms of methamphetamine for trafficking, possession of hydromorphone, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of seven to nine years, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence or two to three years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity of drugs, Trudel's principal role, and his lengthy criminal record, and mitigating factors such as his age, serious health conditions (HIV, Hepatitis C), and four years under strict house arrest.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, distinguishing Trudel's case from that of a co-accused due to his leadership role and failure to seek addiction treatment.

While acknowledging the impact of age, health, and house arrest, the court found these factors did not warrant a substantial reduction from the appropriate sentencing range for drug trafficking.

Trudel was sentenced to six and a half years of incarceration for trafficking, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of breaching a probation order and criminal harassment against a family he had previously been convicted of harassing.

The Crown alleged the accused was seen near the complainants' residence and following one of the complainants in a vehicle.

The court found the eyewitness identification evidence provided by the complainants to be unreliable due to lack of familiarity, poor lighting, brief observation times, and the complainants' heightened anxiety and assumption that the perpetrator was the accused.

The Crown failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts, and a one-year peace bond was entered on consent.

The accused, a registered massage therapist, was charged with four counts of sexual assault relating to four female clients.

The complainants alleged inappropriate touching of their breasts, glutes, and inner thighs during massage treatments.

The accused denied the allegations, testifying that he always obtained prior consent for treatment and that the touching was clinically indicated.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's evidence unreliable due to his admitted lax charting and practices.

However, considering the expert evidence on clinical indications for massaging certain areas and inconsistencies in the complainants' testimonies, the court was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, an alleged leader of the Freedom Convoy 2022, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

He argued a material change in circumstances based on his five months in custody, health issues, and a new bail plan with four proposed sureties.

The court found a material change in circumstances and conducted a fresh review.

Despite the serious nature of the mischief and counselling charges, and new perjury charges arising from his first bail hearing, the court concluded that the proposed strict bail plan, which included relocating to Alberta and strong supervision by new sureties, adequately addressed the secondary and tertiary ground concerns.

The applicant was granted release on bail.

The accused, charged with second degree murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of a known third-party suspect.

The Crown opposed, arguing there was no air of reality to the proposed evidence.

The court applied the sufficient connection test and found that, taking the proposed evidence at its highest, there was an air of reality linking the third party to the shooting.

The application was granted, allowing the defence to cross-examine Crown witnesses and lead evidence regarding the alternative suspect.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a statement provided by the accused, Donald Musselman, to police, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The defence challenged the statement's voluntariness and alleged breaches of Charter rights.

The court found that the interviewing officer undermined the accused's right to silence by suggesting his credibility would be diminished if he did not speak to police and later testified at trial.

Consequently, the statement was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was excluded from evidence.

The accused, charged with possession of property obtained by crime and laundering proceeds of crime, brought a pre-trial application to exclude Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) documents obtained by the investigating officer.

The officer had requested the documents under s. 241(3) of the Income Tax Act, relying on previous, unrelated charges.

The court found that for an investigation into potential new charges, the officer was required to obtain a judicial order under s. 462.48(3) of the Criminal Code.

The warrantless search of the taxpayer information violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the CRA documents from evidence and excised references to them from the Informations to Obtain (ITOs).

However, the court found that the edited ITOs still contained sufficient reliable evidence to support the General Production Orders, and declined to exclude the evidence obtained through those orders.

The accused, Thomas Bell and Norman Stanley Rosbottom Jr., were tried on a 22-count indictment involving charges of participating in a criminal organization, robbery, kidnapping, assault, firearms possession, and drug trafficking.

The Crown alleged that the accused led a criminal organization associated with the Outlaws Motorcycle Club and the Dead Eyes Motorcycle Club.

The court found that the group constituted a criminal organization and that the accused committed several offences, including home invasion robberies, kidnapping, and drug trafficking, for the benefit of the organization.

The court relied on the evidence of several disreputable witnesses, finding their testimony corroborated by other evidence.

However, the court acquitted the accused on charges related to the kidnapping of Cody Noonan and the firearms found at the organization's headquarters due to reasonable doubt.

The accused, a 65-year-old sports coach, was charged with sexual assault, sexual exploitation, and forcible confinement after allegedly giving a 17-year-old athlete a full-body massage at his home.

The accused testified that the massage was strictly for recovery purposes and denied any sexual touching or confinement.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court disbelieved the accused's evidence but found that the totality of the evidence, including timeline inconsistencies and contradictory text messages, left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The Crown sought to admit portions of Jill Gil's bail hearing testimony under the principled approach to hearsay.

Jill Gil, the grandmother of accused Marcus Gil, was unavailable to testify at trial.

The court found that while the necessity criterion for hearsay was met due to her unavailability, the threshold reliability was not established.

The court also determined that the Crown's cross-examination of Jill Gil at the bail hearing was primarily a discovery mechanism, which was improper and would render the admission of such evidence unfair to the accused.

Consequently, the court ruled against the admission of Jill Gil's bail hearing testimony.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, robbery, and break and enter.

The central issue was the identity of the accused as one of the perpetrators.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's fingerprints found on a drug jar at the scene, cell phone records, and the accused's prior lies to the police.

The defence presented an alibi and argued that the fingerprints could have been left during earlier, legitimate drug transactions with the victim.

The court found the accused and his alibi witness not credible due to inconsistencies and vagueness.

However, the court also found the victim's testimony to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding his memory, the identity of "TYBO" (a client recorded in his drug book), and the frequency of washing his drug jars.

Given the conflicting evidence and the victim's lack of credibility on key points, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused, Marcus Gil, age 19, was arrested in January 2017 on serious charges including kidnapping, forcible confinement, robbery, break and enter, robbery with a firearm, and possession of a firearm arising from a violent home invasion.

He was released on bail in April 2017 on strict conditions including house arrest, two sureties (his grandparents), and GPS monitoring.

While on release, he allegedly breached his conditions by meeting with a witness, dealing crack cocaine, and attempting to obstruct justice by trying to convince the witness to leave the city.

The Crown brought a s. 524(8) application to cancel his previous release, and the accused brought a bail application on the new charges.

The court found the accused had not met his onus to show cause for release and ordered him detained on both tertiary and secondary grounds.