Nathan J.S. Gorham

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash a telewarrant and exclude firearm evidence obtained during a police search of his apartment.

The Information to Obtain relied heavily on information from an alleged confidential informant, and the Crown provided a heavily redacted version of the ITO claiming informer privilege.

The court addressed procedural issues at step six of the Garofoli framework concerning whether the excised material could be considered to support the warrant.

The judge held that the Crown must provide sealed written explanations justifying each proposed redaction and must file sealed evidentiary materials establishing the existence of the claimed confidential informant privilege.

These materials would be reviewed by the court alone to determine whether the privilege and redactions were justified.

The appellant appealed her convictions for firearm and drug offences, as well as her sentence.

She argued the trial judge erred in applying step six of the Garofoli procedure by preventing a sub-facial challenge to the redacted information to obtain (ITO) the search warrant, which relied on confidential informers.

The Court of Appeal held that while an accused is entitled to mount a sub-facial challenge at step six, the trial judge's procedure and the judicial summary provided sufficient information to protect the right to make full answer and defence without breaching informer privilege.

The court also upheld the trial judge's dismissal of the appellant's Corbett application and found no error in the consecutive sentence imposed.

The two accused were charged with sexual assault following an incident in a hotel room.

The complainant alleged she blacked out from alcohol consumption and awoke to find one accused sexually assaulting her while the other was present, after having been assaulted by the first accused while unconscious.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding her memory loss unreliable, noting it conflicted with toxicological evidence and her behavior captured on video.

Both accused testified, with one claiming consensual sex and the other denying any sexual contact.

The court found the evidence of the accused raised a reasonable doubt and acquitted both men.

The accused were arrested after police conducted a high-risk takedown of a parked vehicle based on an uncorroborated confidential informant tip alleging cocaine was inside.

Officers arrested the occupants at gunpoint and searched the vehicle, discovering cocaine and a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court held the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest or search, as the tip was vague, the source’s credibility was not established, and there was no meaningful corroboration.

The warrantless arrest and search breached the accused’s rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant, the court found the police conduct deliberate and serious and excluded the evidence, resulting in acquittals.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and related offences.

He was subsequently found guilty of two counts of possessing a firearm contrary to prohibition orders.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender, was transporting the drugs and loaded firearm to a known drug dealer.

The court sentenced him to a total of nine years in prison, reduced to four years and ten months after granting enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to onerous remand conditions and the justice of the peace's failure to make a written notation under s. 515(9.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at an apartment where police seized a firearm, cocaine, drug paraphernalia, and cash.

The accused sought exclusion of the evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that the Information to Obtain relied on confidential informants and contained misleading statements and insufficient disclosure.

The Crown applied under step six of the Garofoli procedure to permit the court to consider the unredacted affidavit.

The court held that the redacted ITO and judicial summary provided sufficient disclosure to allow a facial challenge under the Debot criteria and therefore granted the Crown’s cross‑application.

After excising two exaggerated statements from the affidavit, the court concluded that the remaining information established reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The search authorization was upheld and the Charter application dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion under s. 490(15) of the Criminal Code seeking access to two videos seized by police during the Project Traveller investigation.

The applicant argued access was necessary to protect his reputation and obtain legal advice regarding potential civil remedies, as media coverage linked him to the alleged recording of a controversial video involving a public official.

The court held that although the applicant had a potential legal interest in the seized material, he failed to establish that access to the videos was necessary to advance that interest in a concrete way.

The court emphasized that s. 490(15) requires both a legal interest in the seized item and necessity of access to advance that interest.

Balancing these considerations and the risks of disclosure relating to ongoing prosecutions and public sensitivity, the court refused access.

The co-accused, MacGyver Edwards, brought a motion to remove Edward Sapiano as counsel of record for Tristan Lall due to a conflict of interest.

Mr. Sapiano had previously interviewed Mr. Edwards at a detention centre shortly after his arrest, before realizing they were co-accused in the same murder.

The court found that a solicitor-client relationship was formed during that interview, imparting a duty of loyalty and confidentiality.

Despite a prior waiver signed by Mr. Edwards, the court held that the risk of Mr. Sapiano taking an adverse position against his former client undermined public confidence in the administration of justice.

The motion was granted, and Mr. Sapiano was disqualified.

The accused, a nightclub bouncer and a patron, were charged with aggravated assault following a violent altercation at a crowded nightclub.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from security personnel, the victim, and the victim's friend, as well as a statement from the bouncer's former girlfriend.

The court found the eyewitness identification evidence to be highly unreliable due to poor lighting, chaotic circumstances, inconsistencies, and evidence of collusion between the victim and his friend.

The court also admitted prior consistent statements from the bouncer.

Finding the Crown's evidence insufficient to prove identity and participation beyond a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted both accused.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing that the eyewitness description varied from his appearance.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge adequately explained why he discounted the discrepancies and reasonably relied on the remarkable coincidence that the appellant was found with the co-perpetrator minutes after the robbery wearing a shirt matching the eyewitness description.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that set aside his acquittal and entered a conviction.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that the police had subjective and objective reasonable grounds to believe the occupants of the vehicle possessed illegal firearms.

Consequently, the arrest and subsequent search incident to arrest were lawful, and there was no violation of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, possession of stolen property, and resisting arrest, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The total delay between the laying of charges and the retrial following a mistrial was 30 months.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in allocating delay from a disclosure request to the defence and in placing too much weight on the absence of specific prejudice.

The Court held that the Crown failed in its duty to schedule the retrial without further delay.

The appeal was allowed, the convictions were quashed, and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The appellant appealed her conviction and sentence for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that although the trial judge erred in admitting the record of arrest, the error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of possession.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed because the trial judge erred in finding multiple bail breaches and imposed a sentence inconsistent with her reasons.

The sentence was reduced to 8.5 months, reflecting a 12-month sentence less 3.5 months of pre-trial custody credit.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing confusion over whether he should be tried by a judge alone or a judge and jury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that section 598(1) of the Criminal Code precluded the appellant's right to a jury trial because he failed to establish a legitimate excuse for his non-appearance at trial.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility or application of the burden of proof.