Niall Douglas Gilks

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 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 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.

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.