Nordheimer

In a first-degree murder prosecution, the defence brought a pre-trial application to remove Crown counsel, alleging prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of evidence, and collusion with police.

The Crown brought an application under Rule 34.02 of the Criminal Proceedings Rules to summarily dismiss the defence's application.

The court found that the defence's allegations were based entirely on suspicion, conjecture, and speculation, lacking any evidentiary foundation.

Applying the principles from R. v. Cody, the court concluded there was no reasonable prospect the defence application could succeed and summarily dismissed it without an evidentiary hearing.

The applicant brought an application for certiorari raising multiple complaints regarding his prior drug convictions, including alleged disclosure failures, abuse of process, and delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

He also sought to review the denial of a private prosecution and the quashing of related subpoenas.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review an earlier conviction made in the same court, noting that such matters must be directed to the Court of Appeal.

The court further found that the private prosecution issues were procedurally defective and brought in the wrong venue.

The applicants, three police officers charged with sexual assault, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to delay.

The Crown had obtained a direct indictment, moving the trial to the Superior Court without a preliminary inquiry.

The applicants argued the 18-month presumptive ceiling from Jordan should apply because they were denied a preliminary inquiry.

The court rejected this argument, holding that the 30-month ceiling applies to all cases tried in the Superior Court, regardless of whether a preliminary inquiry actually occurs.

As the anticipated delay was 28 months, falling below the 30-month ceiling, the application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicants sought a determination of privilege claims over documents seized by the Ontario Provincial Police during a fraud investigation.

The court ruled that draft letters and internal emails prepared for counsel's review were privileged.

Regarding copies of non-privileged documents gathered for a lawyer's brief, the court analyzed conflicting appellate authorities and concluded that such copies are only protected by litigation privilege if their gathering reflects specialized skill and knowledge, and provided the original documents are otherwise produced.

The respondent, a young person, was convicted by a jury of two counts of second degree murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and reckless discharge of a firearm arising from the Danzig Street mass shooting.

The Crown applied under the Youth Criminal Justice Act to have an adult sentence imposed.

The court considered the seriousness of the offences, the respondent's background and progress in custody, and the societal interest in accountability and public protection.

Finding that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was rebutted and that a youth sentence would not be of sufficient length to hold the respondent accountable, the court imposed an adult sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for seven years.

The accused was charged with manslaughter as a party to a stabbing death that occurred during a parking lot altercation.

The Crown argued the accused was liable under s. 21(1)(a) or s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code because he participated in a group assault during which another individual stabbed the victim.

The court found that the victim's group instigated the confrontation and that the stabber's use of a knife was an unforeseeable intervening act.

The accused was found not guilty.

The applicant, facing serious drug trafficking charges, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel after being denied legal aid.

The Crown conceded the charges were serious and the case complex, but disputed the applicant's inability to privately fund his defence.

The court found that Legal Aid Ontario's income thresholds were unrealistic and that the applicant, who earned approximately $16,000 annually, had no realistic prospect of funding the estimated $11,000 trial costs.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed pending the provision of state-funded counsel.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with a breath demand.

The respondent had failed seven times to provide a proper breath sample after being stopped for speeding and exhibiting signs of alcohol consumption.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding a reasonable doubt as to whether the failure was intentional.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge failed to apply the proper legal standard for mens rea.

The Court found that absent evidence to the contrary, multiple failures to provide a sample give rise to an inescapable inference of intent.

The acquittal was set aside and a conviction entered.

During a trial for second-degree murder and other offences arising from a block party shooting, the Crown brought an application to admit an intercepted statement of a witness for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The witness, who had previously described the shooting and his subsequent attempt to murder the accused in retaliation, claimed at trial that he had fabricated the story to impress other youths in detention.

The court found that the statement met the criteria for threshold reliability, given the availability of the witness for cross-examination, the video recording of the statement, and substantial corroborative evidence.

The necessity criterion was also met because the witness effectively disavowed his earlier statement.

The application was granted.

The Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert on Toronto street gangs and to opine that the young person was a member of a specific gang.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey frameworks for expert evidence.

The court found that the officer lacked the necessary specialized knowledge, experience, and validated methodology to be qualified as an expert, particularly regarding the identification of specific individuals as gang members.

The application to qualify the officer as an expert was dismissed.

The Crown sought to admit three statements made by the young person to police following two separate shooting incidents, including a mass shooting where the young person was a victim.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the statements, arguing they were involuntary due to the young person's medical condition and alleged police oppression, and that the police failed to provide a caution under section 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the young person had an operating mind, was not subjected to threats or oppression, and was interviewed as a victim rather than a suspect or detainee.

All three statements were ruled voluntary and admissible.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder after stabbing a stranger to death in a cafe.

The court found the elements of second-degree murder were proven, as the attack was unprovoked and not planned.

However, based on psychiatric evidence, the court found the accused suffered from schizophrenia and was experiencing severe delusions and paranoia at the time.

The court concluded the accused was incapable of knowing his actions were morally wrong and found him not criminally responsible under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown obtained an ex parte transmission data recorder warrant and an assistance order compelling a telecommunications company to provide subscriber information for unknown phone numbers communicating with a target.

The company sought a review of the assistance order, arguing that a general warrant was required to obtain subscriber information due to privacy interests recognized in R. v. Spencer.

The Superior Court of Justice held that it had jurisdiction to review the order and concluded that an assistance order under s. 487.02 of the Criminal Code is sufficient to compel the production of subscriber information to give effect to a transmission data recorder warrant.

The applicant was stopped by police in a park while they were investigating a robbery.

The police claimed the applicant acted nervously and had a heavy pocket, leading them to believe he had a gun.

A struggle ensued, during which the applicant was beaten by multiple officers, and a handgun was found in his pocket.

The court found the officers' evidence to be contradictory and unreliable, concluding they had no reasonable grounds for the arrest or search.

The court held that the applicant's rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the firearm from evidence under s. 24(2) due to the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the applicant's rights.

The Crown applied for certiorari to review a preliminary hearing judge's decision discharging the accused on firearm charges.

The preliminary hearing judge found there was 'no evidence' the object used in the robbery was a firearm because it was not recovered or fired.

The Superior Court granted the application, finding the judge committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider circumstantial evidence, such as the complainant's testimony about the object's appearance and use, which could allow a reasonable jury to infer it was a firearm.

The matter was remitted with an order of mandamus directing committal for trial on the firearm offences.

The applicant, who was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced as a youth to ten years, applied for an annual review of his sentence under s. 94(6) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

He sought to serve the remaining two years of his custodial sentence in open custody to attend college, rather than being transferred to an adult provincial facility upon turning twenty-one.

The court found that the applicant had made tremendous rehabilitative gains, including completing high school despite a learning disability, and demonstrated significant maturity.

The application was granted, and the sentence was varied to open custody to reward his progress and further his rehabilitation.

The applicant, a Bangladeshi citizen residing in Bangladesh, was charged under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act with bribing foreign public officials in relation to a bridge construction project.

He brought an application to prohibit the Crown from proceeding with the charge, arguing that Canada lacked jurisdiction over him as a foreign national whose alleged acts occurred entirely outside Canada.

The Superior Court of Justice held that while Canada had jurisdiction over the offence itself, the Act did not extend jurisdiction over the person of a foreign national acting abroad unless they were physically present in Canada.

The court granted a stay of proceedings against the applicant.

The applicant, charged with child pornography offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the Charter.

The court found no breach of ss. 8 or 10, as the police questioning at his home did not constitute a search or psychological detention.

However, the court found breaches of s. 9, due to an arbitrary three-day detention based on faulty police information, and s. 7, due to mistreatment in custody including the denial of medication for his obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Despite these breaches, the court dismissed the application for a stay, concluding that the prejudice could be adequately addressed through other remedies, such as a sentence reduction if convicted.

Four young persons were charged with the first-degree murder of a sixteen-year-old victim who was shot and killed in a residential building staircase.

The Crown alleged that the accused lured the victim into the staircase as part of a planned and deliberate execution, relying heavily on surveillance video and extensive text message evidence containing gang slang.

The court found three of the accused guilty as joint principals or aiders, concluding they orchestrated and executed the plan.

The fourth accused was found not guilty, as the evidence raised suspicions but failed to prove his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

The young person applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-accused, applied for a directed verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including text messages, video surveillance, and the applicant's flight from the scene, to establish the applicant's participation in a planned and deliberate murder.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could return a verdict of guilty.