Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - OCA

An appeal concerning a non-publication order imposed under section 517 of the Criminal Code at a bail hearing.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued reasons for decision regarding the applicability and scope of the publication ban, which restricts the publication, broadcast, or transmission of evidence, information, representations, and reasons given at the bail hearing.

The applicant was convicted of sexual interference, internet luring, and two counts of failing to comply with a release order.

He was sentenced to six years and ten months imprisonment.

The applicant applied for bail pending appeal of his convictions.

The motion judge refused bail, finding that while the appeal was not frivolous, it barely met that threshold.

The enforceability considerations arising from the grave nature of the offences—ongoing sexual abuse of a 13-year-old child—outweighed the weak grounds of appeal.

The motion judge concluded that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Appeal from a conviction for possession of child pornography.

The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial judge erred in reviewing the Information to Obtain (ITO) that formed the basis for the search warrant used to seize the DVD containing child pornography.

The appellant argued that information excised from the ITO had the potential to taint the issuing justice.

The Court of Appeal found that the excisions were made consistently with established principles and that sufficient reasonable grounds remained to support the issuance of the warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending conviction appeal after being convicted of multiple counts of assault, assault with a weapon, choking, sexual assault, and assault causing bodily harm.

He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment.

The court applied the three-part test under section 679(3) of the Criminal Code: whether the appeal is not frivolous, whether the applicant will surrender into custody, and whether detention is necessary in the public interest.

While the appeal was found to be not frivolous and the applicant demonstrated he would comply with release conditions, the court dismissed the bail application based on the public interest component, finding that the enforceability interest substantially outweighed the reviewability interest given the gravity and circumstances of the offences.

The Crown appealed an acquittal in a child pornography case where the trial judge excluded evidence obtained through a search warrant.

The trial judge found the warrant was invalid because police failed to verify information from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) report for accuracy, failed to include a disclaimer from the NCMEC report, failed to confirm Microsoft's use of PhotoDNA software, and found the information stale despite only seven to eight months having elapsed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and entered a conviction, finding the trial judge applied an incorrect legal standard by requiring verification for accuracy rather than assessing reasonableness, and erred in substituting her own views for those of the issuing justice.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking various drugs, challenging the trial judge's refusal to permit cross-examination of the affiant on the information to obtain the search warrant and the trial judge's conclusion that the warrant was validly issued.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decisions, finding that while the reasons were imprecise, they were sufficient to permit appellate review when considered in context.

The court found no error in refusing cross-examination on the confidential informant's track record or criminal history, and determined that the information provided by the informant met the Debot criteria for reliability and was sufficiently corroborated to justify the warrant's issuance.

The appellant sought bail pending appeal of his conviction for aggravated assault.

The trial judge found that the appellant stabbed the victim with a steak knife during a party while very intoxicated.

The Crown conceded the appellant was not a flight risk.

The motions judge dismissed the bail application, finding that detention was necessary in the public interest under section 679(3)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The grounds for appeal were not strong, and the seriousness of the offence, combined with the appellant's lengthy criminal record including violent convictions, favoured detention.

The appellant sought judicial interim release pending the hearing of her sentence appeal challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for weapons trafficking under section 99(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The motion judge dismissed the application, finding that while the appeal had arguable merit, it did not have sufficient merit to warrant release under section 679(4)(a), and that the appellant had not established that her detention was not necessary in the public interest under section 679(4)(c).

The appellant sought bail pending appeal after being convicted of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm under s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and possession of a prohibited firearm under s. 92(1).

He was sentenced to 96 months on the first offence and 80 months concurrent on the second, with 44 months credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown opposed bail on the basis that detention was necessary in the public interest.

The motion judge found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the appellant would surrender as required, the appellant failed to demonstrate that detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The appellants were convicted of possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The central issue on appeal concerned the validity of a search warrant obtained using information from a confidential informant.

The warrant was executed at night and resulted in the seizure of approximately 300 grams of cocaine and $46,000 in cash.

The appellants challenged the warrant on multiple grounds, including the use of the Garofoli step six procedure, the adequacy of the judicial summary of redacted information, whether the confidential informant's tip met the Debot criteria for reliability, and whether the night search was reasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding that the warrant was valid and the search lawful.

The appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (x4) and possession of property obtained by crime, receiving a global sentence of five years and eight months.

He appealed on grounds relating to the validity of the search warrant executed at his residence, which yielded 800 grams of cocaine, 505 oxycodone pills, drug paraphernalia, and $32,880 in cash.

The trial judge dismissed the Charter s. 8 application, finding the warrant was properly issued based on a credible confidential informant's tip that was corroborated by police surveillance.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and sentence, rejecting all four grounds of appeal.

The Crown sought an order vacating the appellant's bail pending appeal and detaining him in custody.

The appellant had been convicted of possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and production of marijuana, and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment and two years' probation.

While on bail pending appeal, the appellant was arrested on charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The Court of Appeal addressed the jurisdiction to revoke appeal bail when an appellant remains out of custody and determined that while the court cannot directly revoke bail in such circumstances, it may issue an arrest warrant under the Criminal Code provisions governing bail violations and new indictable offences committed while on release.

The appellant sought bail pending appeal and a stay of a six-year driving prohibition following conviction and sentencing to six months imprisonment plus two years probation.

The Crown opposed on the ground that the appeal was frivolous.

The motion judge found that while most grounds were frivolous, one alleged error of law regarding the trial judge's use of the appellant's failure to comment on a van in front of him to the 911 operator could not be characterized as frivolous at that stage.

The Crown did not rely on other grounds to oppose bail or the stay.

Bail and the stay were granted.

The appellant sought judicial interim release pending appeal after being convicted of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking a controlled substance for the benefit of a criminal organization, arising from investigations into Toronto-area gang activity.

The appellant's grounds of appeal concerned the legality of wiretap authorizations and general warrants, including issues regarding mobile device identifier technology, warrantless surveillance in condominium common areas, and the naming of the appellant as a known person.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous and granted bail pending appeal, subject to strict conditions including perfection of the appeal by January 12, 2018.

The appellant appealed his conviction for possession for the purposes of trafficking following a search of his apartment conducted pursuant to a telewarrant.

The trial judge quashed the warrant on the narrow basis that the affiant failed to justify the use of the telewarrant procedure, but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's rulings on cross-examination of the affiant, the finding of reasonable and probable grounds, and the s. 24(2) analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal and refused leave to appeal sentence.

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking following a search of his residence conducted pursuant to a warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The warrant did not specify a date for execution but authorized entry "at any time." The appellant appealed, arguing the warrant was invalid because it failed to specify an execution date, rendering the search a violation of Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that while the warrant did not expressly state an execution date, an execution date could be implied from the date of issuance.

The court rejected the appellant's characterization of the warrant as expressly non-expiring and held that the absence of an express date was a technical fault that did not invalidate the warrant.

Appeal from a sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice following a conviction.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's assessment of whether section 8 Charter rights were breached during a search.

The trial judge found that a level 3 search was reasonable except for the "squat and cough" procedure, which was deemed unreasonable.

The trial judge reduced the sentence as a remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter.

The appellant sought a stay of proceedings, arguing systemic deficiencies.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in her findings and determining that the sentence reduction was an appropriate remedy for the breach.

The applicant sought bail pending the Minister's surrender decision in an extradition matter.

The applicant had been convicted in absentia in Illinois in 2004 for drug trafficking and sentenced to 16 years imprisonment.

He fled to Jamaica and subsequently immigrated to Canada in 2006, becoming a Canadian citizen in 2009.

Upon attempting to renew his passport to attend his mother's funeral in 2016, he was arrested under the Extradition Act.

The court granted bail, finding that the applicant met the three-part test under section 679 of the Criminal Code as applied to extradition proceedings: the application was not frivolous, the applicant would surrender when ordered, and detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The appellant appealed his conviction for drug trafficking and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The trial judge found that police had reasonable grounds to arrest the appellant following observation of a suspected drug transaction.

Although the trial judge found a breach of s. 8 of the Charter regarding a warrantless entry into the appellant's apartment, she held that a subsequent search warrant was validly issued and declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding no errors in the trial judge's analysis of reasonable grounds for arrest, reasonable expectation of privacy, the validity of the search warrant, or the s. 24(2) analysis.

The appellant was charged with several offences following execution of a search warrant at a residence that uncovered a marijuana grow-operation and a handgun.

At trial, the appellant challenged the validity of the search warrant under a sub-facial analysis, arguing that the information to obtain contained erroneous information and that police conduct in seeking the warrant was subversive of the pre-authorization process.

The trial judge found the warrant was valid after excising improper portions of the information to obtain, and declined to exercise a residual discretion to quash the warrant despite identifying deficiencies in the affiant's conduct.

The appellant was convicted and appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in applying a "clearest of cases" standard rather than a lower threshold for setting aside a valid warrant based on subversion of the pre-authorization process.