Nola E. Garton

The applicant sought a review of a detention order on charges including possession of a loaded firearm and drug trafficking, after breaching his initial bail conditions.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on a new release plan involving his parents as sureties and GPS monitoring.

However, conducting a de novo review, the court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the secondary and tertiary grounds due to the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences involving a loaded firearm and fentanyl, and concerns about the proposed sureties' ability to supervise him.

The accused was tried on a charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm arising from a first in-person meeting after online communications.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to inflict bodily harm, and further found significant reliability concerns in the complainant’s evidence arising from intoxication, memory gaps, inconsistencies, and lack of supporting physical evidence.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the test in Zhao, the court concluded that reasonable doubt remained on the issue of non-consent to anal intercourse.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused, Justin Hung, applied to reopen his trial and declare a mistrial after being found guilty of possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

Post-conviction analysis revealed significant inaccuracies in the Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) regarding the quantity and value of methamphetamine.

The original ASF stated 700.65 grams of methamphetamine (worth up to $46,800), but the actual amount was 15.54 grams (worth potentially much less, depending on market factors).

The court found that the incorrect high value of the drugs played a role in its initial assessment of the accused's credibility and the inferences drawn from circumstantial evidence.

Given that the fresh evidence could reasonably have affected the trial's outcome, the court allowed the application to reopen the case, set aside the finding of guilt, and declared a mistrial to ensure fairness and avoid any appearance of bias in re-evaluating credibility.

The applicant, Shawn Tedder, faced charges of trafficking and possession of marihuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

He brought several pre-trial motions, including an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter, an application to quash indictment counts under s. 601(1) of the Criminal Code alleging unconstitutionality of s. 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA), various constitutional challenges to the medical marihuana regulatory schemes (MMAR, MMPR, ACMPR) and CDSA ss. 4, 5, and 6, and an application under s. 8 of the Charter for exclusion of evidence.

All of Tedder's applications were dismissed.

The court found no s. 11(b) violation, affirmed the validity of CDSA s. 5 offences despite regulatory changes, and rejected constitutional challenges due to an insufficient evidentiary record and established legal principles distinguishing medical users from commercial suppliers.

The accused, Furqan Akhtar and Saifullah Dero, were found guilty by a jury of criminal negligence causing death and two counts of criminal negligence causing bodily harm while street racing.

The offences involved racing at high speeds (up to 144 km/h in a 60 km/h zone) on a city street, resulting in a fatal collision that killed one person and seriously injured two others.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the extreme speed, dangerous driving on a busy city street, and the horrific consequences, balanced against mitigating factors including the youth of the first-time offenders and their rehabilitative prospects.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 30 months imprisonment for each accused, along with a 10-year driving prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of the vehicles.

The accused, an Accounts Payable clerk at the Ontario Hospital Association, was charged with defrauding her employer of approximately $80,000 by issuing eight fraudulent cheques to fictitious vendors.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's exclusive access to the cheque-printing software, forged signatures on vendor forms, and the timing of the cheque runs.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles to the accused's out-of-court denials and concluded that the only reasonable inference on the totality of the evidence was that the accused perpetrated the fraud.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, a repeat offender with a history of firearm offences, was convicted of discharging a restricted firearm and possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

After being rebuffed by a woman outside an after-hours party, he discharged a handgun twice into the air.

At the time, he was subject to a lifetime weapons prohibition order.

The Crown sought 12 to 14 years, while the defence sought 6.5 to 8 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 10 years (7 years and 3 months net of pre-trial custody).

The court declined to grant enhanced pre-sentence credit for lockdowns, finding the conditions were not particularly harsh.

The accused was charged with discharging a restricted or prohibited firearm and related offences after allegedly firing a handgun twice in the air outside an after-hours party.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, primarily video surveillance showing the accused raising his arm, the synchronized reactions of bystanders ducking and running, and the discovery of a single shell casing in the area.

The court evaluated the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence, including expert testimony on firearm operation and the non-assertive conduct of bystanders, and found the accused guilty on all counts.

The offender was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after striking the victim over the head with a beer bottle outside a bar.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term, arguing the offender was a party to a subsequent, more severe assault by another individual.

The court found the offender was not a party to the second assault.

Considering the offender's status as a permanent resident and the collateral immigration consequences of a sentence of six months or more, the court imposed a sentence of six months less one day to preserve his right to appeal a deportation order, followed by two years of probation.

Andre Callaghan was found guilty of 15 counts, including discharging a prohibited firearm, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a high-capacity magazine, possession of a firearm with a removed serial number, careless storage, possession of firearms/devices while prohibited, dangerous driving, and failing to stop for police.

Counts 2, 5, and 7 were stayed.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his extensive criminal record (including prior gun and drug offenses, and breaches of prohibition orders), lack of remorse, and high-risk lifestyle.

Mitigating factors included family support, educational achievements in custody, and employment history.

The court declined enhanced credit for pre-trial custody conditions due to insufficient evidence of impact.

A global sentence of ten years was imposed, reduced to six years after credit for pre-trial custody, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearms prohibition and a two-year driving prohibition.

The three accused were charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon following an altercation outside a bar.

The victim had spilled beer on one of the accused, who then followed the victim outside and struck him over the head with a beer bottle.

The Crown alleged a second accused struck the victim with a glass, and the third accused facilitated the assault by confronting the victim.

Relying on surveillance footage and witness testimony, the court found the first accused guilty of all charges.

However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the second accused struck the victim, and found the third accused lacked the requisite intent to be a party to the offence.

The second and third accused were acquitted.

The offender was found guilty of trafficking in crack cocaine and simple possession of crack cocaine.

The court considered the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, her employment history, her role as a caregiver for her mother, and the fact that her s. 10(b) Charter rights were breached by police delay in facilitating access to counsel.

Emphasizing the principles of denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging the strong mitigating factors, the court imposed a blended sentence consisting of a 90-day intermittent jail sentence for the trafficking charge and an 18-month conditional sentence for the possession charge.

The offender was convicted of four counts of trafficking in cocaine.

At sentencing, he brought a Charter application challenging the constitutionality of s. 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which eliminated conditional sentences for offences with a maximum penalty of 14 years or life, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the provision did not result in grossly disproportionate sentences and was not overbroad.

The offender was sentenced to 90 days of intermittent imprisonment followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with 13 firearm-related offences, dangerous driving, and flight from police.

Following a shooting where the accused was targeted, he allegedly pursued the shooter, fired back, and hid his gun in a bag in nearby bushes.

The police found the bag, which contained the prohibited firearm along with the accused's identification documents.

The accused claimed he was merely an innocent bystander hiding from the gunfire.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court rejected the accused's exculpatory statements and found that the circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony and the contents of the bag, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and discharged the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant, charged with trafficking in crack cocaine, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence seized from her vehicle, alleging violations of her s. 8 and s. 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 8 violation, concluding the search was lawful pursuant to a warrant and as a search incident to arrest, despite the searching officer being unaware of the warrant.

The court found that the applicant's s. 10(b) rights were breached due to an inadequate informational caution upon arrest and an unjustified delay in facilitating access to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the reliable, non-conscriptive evidence seized from the vehicle should not be excluded, as its admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

Deepu Sawh, charged with four counts of trafficking crack cocaine, sought a judicial stay of proceedings based on entrapment after the Crown closed its case and guilt was admitted.

The application was dismissed.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to investigate Sawh based on a detailed and reliable confidential informant tip, and the undercover officer's initial interaction was a legitimate investigative step, not an inducement.

The court emphasized that the reasonable suspicion inquiry should focus on the collective knowledge of the investigative team.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of robbery with a firearm, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and possession of property obtained by crime after robbing a convenience store with a pellet gun.

The Crown sought a sentence of five years, while the defence sought four years and nine months, matching the co-accused's sentence.

The court found the accused's role was more serious as he instigated the robbery and used the weapon to strike the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of four years and 11 months, reduced by credit for pre-trial custody and strict bail conditions to a net sentence of three years and 354 days.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for first degree murder on the basis that the Crown had not led evidence capable of supporting the predicate offence of sexual assault required under s. 231(5)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The evidence established that the accused’s semen was found in the deceased’s mouth and that the deceased died from neck compression during a violent encounter in her apartment.

The court held that while there was evidence of both a sexual act and a homicide, there was no evidence linking the sexual act to non-consensual activity or establishing that the death occurred while committing or attempting to commit sexual assault.

The preliminary inquiry judge’s inference that the sexual activity was non-consensual improperly conflated the violent killing with the earlier sexual act and relied on speculation rather than evidence.

The committal for first degree murder was therefore quashed, but the accused was ordered to stand trial for second degree murder.

The accused brought an application under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a loaded handgun and other items seized during the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The warrant was based on information from a confidential informant.

The accused sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and challenged the sufficiency of the redacted Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court dismissed the application to cross-examine the affiant, finding it would not assist in determining if the warrant could have issued.

The court held that the judicial summary provided sufficient information for the accused to make full answer and defence.

Ultimately, the court found no s. 8 breach, as the informant's tip was compelling, credible, and corroborated, providing reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

In the alternative, the court held the evidence would be admissible under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with break and enter, child abduction, sexual assault, and sexual interference arising from the nighttime abduction of a child from a residence.

On a voir dire, the defence challenged the admissibility of DNA samples and two police statements, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Charter and arguing the statements were involuntary.

The court found the accused was not psychologically detained during the initial police interview and that his statement and consent DNA sample were voluntary and informed.

The court also held there were no Charter breaches in relation to counsel rights or the right to silence during the later custodial interview.

Both the statements and DNA evidence were ruled admissible.