Niall Douglas Gilks

The Ontario Securities Commission prosecuted the defendant, a director of a startup company developing a blockchain token backed by a mining asset, for securities fraud, making misleading statements to the OSC, unregistered trading, and illegal distribution of securities.

The court found that while misrepresentations were made in some corporate materials regarding the company's interest in a mine, the investors did not rely on those materials, negating the deprivation element of fraud.

The court also found the defendant's statements to the OSC were factually correct, he was not in the business of trading securities, and the distributions he authorized fell within the private issuer exemption.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The Ontario Securities Commission applied to continue Freeze Directions over five trading accounts owned by the respondent, which allegedly contained proceeds of insider trading based on material non-public information.

The respondent opposed the continuation, arguing a lack of admissible evidence.

The court applied the low evidentiary threshold from Future Solar and found sufficient evidence to meet the three-part test, continuing the Freeze Directions until October 31, 2022, or the conclusion of proceedings.

The offender was found guilty of trading without registration, failing to file a prospectus, and fraud under the Ontario Securities Act.

He operated two companies that fraudulently took over $5 million from investors under the guise of mortgage investments, diverting at least $2 million for personal use.

The court weighed the significant aggravating factors, including the devastating financial impact on over 70 victims, against mitigating factors such as the offender's age, prior good character, and health issues.

The offender was sentenced to 3.5 years in prison and ordered to pay $4,859,552.58 in restitution.

This judgment addresses three charges against Mr. Singh under the Ontario Securities Act (OSA) for unregistered trading, distribution without a prospectus, and fraud, as well as two Charter applications.

The court first dismissed Mr. Singh's application for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, finding the net delay constitutionally tolerable after accounting for defence-caused delay and the COVID-19 pandemic as a discrete exceptional event.

It also dismissed his s. 7 Charter application, which alleged his right to make full answer and defence was violated by the virtual nature of the trial, concluding he was able to participate effectively.

Subsequently, the court found Mr. Singh guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all three OSA charges, determining he was the operating mind of Rockfort and Greenview, engaged in unregistered trading and distribution of securities, and committed fraud by misrepresenting the companies as mortgage investment corporations that held no mortgages and by making other material misrepresentations to investors.

David Singh, self-represented, brought a third application to adjourn his trial on charges under the Securities Act, including securities fraud, trading without registration, and illegal distribution of securities.

The grounds for adjournment were COVID-19 constraints on virtual trial, physical health problems, and mental health problems.

The Ontario Securities Commission opposed the application, arguing it was a delay tactic.

The court dismissed the application, finding that adequate accommodations were made for the virtual trial, physical health issues were not debilitating, and while the defendant might be distressed, he was fit to stand trial and capable of self-representation given his background and the accommodations provided.

The offender pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in Fentanyl, trafficking in Fentanyl, and failing to comply with probation.

The offender was a member of a conspiracy that sold approximately 375 patches of Fentanyl over a six-month period from January to June 2017.

The offender played a subordinate role as a "runner" or "mule" for the organization, controlled by the conspiracy leader.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 months incarceration less pre-trial custody calculated at 1.5:1, resulting in five months remaining to be served.

The sentencing was informed by a comprehensive Gladue report and a sentencing circle incorporating Indigenous justice principles.

The court emphasized the serious nature of Fentanyl trafficking while recognizing the offender's traumatic childhood, Indigenous heritage, addiction issues, and significant rehabilitative progress.

The accused were charged with multiple offences including conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and heroin, and criminal organization offences related to a motorcycle club.

The Crown relied heavily on police surveillance and intercepted communications.

The court admitted the visual and voice identification evidence, as well as a membership list under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found two of the accused guilty of conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and heroin, but acquitted the third.

The court acquitted all accused of the criminal organization charges, finding the Crown failed to prove that one of the main purposes of the motorcycle club was the facilitation of serious offences.

One accused was also found guilty of weapons and proceeds of crime offences.

The accused brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence obtained through omnibus warrants and search warrants, alleging insufficient material before the issuing judges and breaches of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court addressed issues of standing, the excision of misleading expert opinion and irrelevant information from the Information To Obtain (ITO), and the sufficiency of confidential informant (CI) information for both predicate warrants (tracking and dialed number recorder warrants) and the main wiretap authorization.

The court found that all accused had standing, excised certain inflammatory and misleading portions of the ITO, but ultimately concluded that the predicate warrants met the lower "reasonable suspicion" standard and the wiretap authorization met the "best interests of justice" standard, supported by credible and corroborated CI information.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Crown brought a pretrial motion to admit the opinion evidence of two police officers as expert witnesses in a trial involving drug trafficking and criminal organization charges.

The first officer was proposed as an expert in drug trafficking and slang, which the court admitted fully, finding the evidence reliable and necessary.

The second officer was proposed as an expert on outlaw motorcycle gangs, specifically the Outlaws and the Black Pistons.

The court found the second officer qualified to testify on the general history and culture of outlaw motorcycle gangs, but excluded his opinion on the specific culture of the Black Pistons and the ultimate issue of whether they constituted a criminal organization, due to his limited specific experience with that group.

The accused brought a pretrial motion for Crown disclosure of questionnaires, debriefing notes, and handlers' notes regarding 22 confidential informants used to support wiretap authorizations.

The Crown conceded the questionnaires and debriefing notes but opposed disclosing the handlers' notes, arguing they were not relied upon by the affiant.

The court held that in the context of a Garofoli application, handlers' notes not relied upon by the affiant do not form part of the investigative file requiring disclosure.

However, the court ordered disclosure of the handlers' notes for two informants because the affiant himself was their handler.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of cocaine and cash seized during a warrantless search following a traffic stop.

He alleged breaches of ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter after police concealed the true reason for his detention and delayed advising him of his right to counsel.

The court found no s. 8 breach because reasonable and probable grounds existed based on wiretap intelligence and surveillance.

However, deliberate breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) occurred when police misled the accused about the reason for detention and failed to promptly advise him of his right to counsel or facilitate a requested call.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court held the breaches were brief and had minimal practical impact, and that society’s interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission of the reliable physical evidence.

The applicant sought exclusion of intercepted private communications on the basis of an admitted s. 8 Charter breach arising from the failure to identify her as a known person in a wiretap authorization.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court held that the breach was serious because private communications attract a high expectation of privacy and authorization materials must be accurate and complete.

However, the impact on the applicant’s protected interests was modest because her conversations were intercepted only through communications with a properly named target and would have been captured regardless.

Given the reliability and centrality of the evidence and society’s interest in adjudication on the merits, exclusion was refused.

The appellant, a third party claiming an interest in forfeited property, appealed a forfeiture order made under section 16 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, holding that section 16(3) expressly limits the right of appeal to the person convicted or the Attorney General, and grants no right of appeal to third parties.

The appellant appealed convictions arising from a large marijuana grow operation discovered on his rural property, arguing the trial judge improperly relied on his silence at arrest and the absence of detail in parts of his testimony when assessing credibility.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did err in drawing an adverse inference from the accused’s exercise of his constitutional right to silence and in relying on certain missing details in the testimony.

However, the court applied the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code, concluding that the Crown’s evidence overwhelmingly established guilt and that the verdict would inevitably have been the same.

The appellant also challenged the forfeiture of 50% of his property under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court held the forfeiture was a proper exercise of discretion and dismissed the sentence appeal.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant executed at his apartment in a trial for possession of narcotics for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought to rely on an edited information-to-obtain that contained redactions to protect a confidential informant's identity.

The Crown proposed that portions of the information that could not be summarized without disclosing the informant's identity be excluded from consideration, while the Crown would rely on the remaining edited portions and judicial summaries.

The court was asked whether the sixth step of the Garofoli procedure permits the Crown to decline to rely on excised material that cannot be summarized without risking disclosure of the confidential informant's identity.

The appellant pleaded guilty to 12 offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking in methamphetamine and cocaine, and dangerous driving involving ramming police cars.

He appealed his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's extensive prior criminal record of over 45 convictions.

Two accused were tried on numerous drug‑related offences including conspiracies to import cocaine, conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime, trafficking, and participation in a criminal organization.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications detailing several alleged conspiracies, including the “Flowers”, “Medivac”, and “Wooden Shoes” schemes.

The court held that mere discussions of criminal plans do not establish conspiracy without proof of an agreement to commit the unlawful act.

One conspiracy to import cocaine through a medical evacuation aircraft was proven against both accused, while other alleged import conspiracies were not established.

The court also convicted one accused of conspiracy to launder proceeds of crime and several trafficking and possession‑for‑the‑purpose offences, while dismissing the criminal organization charge for lack of evidence of structured organization.

The applicants sought exclusion of wiretap evidence under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the basis that Part VI authorizations were obtained using an unsigned and improperly commissioned affidavit, and allegedly lacked investigative necessity and reasonable grounds.

The court heard viva voce evidence from the affiant officer and the commissioner of oaths regarding irregularities in the affidavit commissioning process.

The court found the deficiencies were mechanical errors made in good faith and concluded the affidavit evidence had nevertheless been sworn and was trustworthy.

Applying the principles governing review of wiretap authorizations, the court held the record demonstrated investigative necessity and reasonable and probable grounds.

The motions to exclude the intercepted communications were dismissed.

The appellant appealed her conviction on the basis that the trial judge erred in assessing eyewitness identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to distinguish the relative probative value of multiple identifications by a police officer, failed to consider a relevant physical description discrepancy despite a Crown admission, and failed to caution himself on the generic weaknesses of eyewitness identification.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellants appealed their convictions for production of marihuana, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and theft of electricity.

The primary appellant also appealed his ten-month sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the primary appellant's appeals, finding ample evidence of his involvement in the sophisticated grow operation and concluding the sentence was fit.

However, the Court allowed the appeals of the primary appellant's parents, finding the circumstantial evidence of their brief presence at the house and gardening activities insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they were parties to or aided and abetted the operation.

Their convictions were set aside and acquittals entered.