Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused, Dominic Wright, faced charges related to drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime under the CDSA and Criminal Code, as well as breaches of a release order.

The central issue at trial was whether the accused was in constructive possession of controlled substances and cash found in a condo unit.

The court found the accused in constructive possession of fentanyl and cash in the kitchen and bedroom closet, applying the principles of circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in constructive possession of fentanyl found in the dryer.

The accused was found guilty of most charges, including possession for the purpose of trafficking (oxycodone, MDMA, fentanyl in kitchen/closet), possession of proceeds of crime, and most breaches of a release order, but not guilty of possession of fentanyl in the dryer or the cell phone breach.

The Crown sought an adjournment of a criminal trial continuation due to the unavailability of a key witness.

The defendant opposed the application, arguing the Crown failed to meet the "laches or neglect" prong of the R. v. Darville test.

The court found that the Crown's office was negligent in failing to notify the police of the continuation date until six days prior, attributing this to a systemic resourcing issue where one person was responsible for all subpoenas.

Despite acknowledging resource constraints, the court held that such deficiencies cannot imperil a defendant's rights.

The application for adjournment was dismissed.

The accused, Bruce Cavey, brought an application to stay his sexual assault charge for unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The aggregate delay was 911 days.

The court deducted 31 days for defence delay related to counsel retention and 138 days for a portion of the delay caused by exceptional circumstances (volume of third-party disclosure, Toronto Star involvement) which were partially offset by Crown delay (late complainant's counsel, late Seaboyer application).

The court rejected the Crown's arguments for further deductions based on a "complex case" exception or a "COVID ripple effect" emphasizing the need for concrete evidence and a holistic "bird's-eye view" as per *Jordan*.

The court found the total attributable delay to be 742 days, exceeding the 18-month ceiling for provincial court cases, and consequently stayed the charge.

The accused, Richard Hannell, was found guilty of criminal harassment against a news reporter, E.T. The accused repeatedly followed E.T. to her work locations, took photographs without her knowledge, and posted numerous tweets expressing romantic interest and later anger, including a disturbing email suggesting she should die.

Despite police warnings, the accused persisted in his conduct, causing E.T. to fear for her safety, leading her employer to remove her from the morning show.

The court found the Crown proved all elements of criminal harassment beyond a reasonable doubt, rejecting the accused's implausible and inconsistent testimony.

The respondent, Meththa Fernando, appealed her conviction for failing to comply with an order under Section 58 of the Quarantine Act, specifically for refusing a random COVID-19 nasal swab test upon arrival at Pearson Airport.

The court found that Section 14(1) of the Quarantine Act prohibits screening technology that involves the entry of an instrument or foreign body into a traveller's body.

The nasal swab was deemed an "instrument" or "foreign body" and its insertion into the nasal cavity was considered an entry into the body.

Therefore, the screening officer's demand for the test was unlawful, rendering Ms. Fernando's refusal lawful.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was reversed, and a finding of not guilty was entered.

The Crown sought a long-term offender (LTO) declaration and a 10-year long-term supervision order (LTSO) against the offender, Jeffrey Bluecloud, following his conviction for multiple bank robberies and associated charges.

The offender conceded LTO status but sought a lower reformatory sentence and a 5-year LTSO.

The court designated the offender as an LTO, imposing a further sentence of 15 months in a provincial reformatory and a 7-year LTSO.

The decision emphasized public safety through rehabilitation, considering the offender's Indigenous background and the unsuitability of a federal penitentiary sentence due to likely segregation preventing access to programming.

Gurlal Dhillon pleaded guilty to charges of robbery, dangerous driving, and breaching a youth sentence, arising from an armed robbery spree involving multiple vehicle thefts at gunpoint using an imitation firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors including the use of a realistic imitation firearm, the defendant's prior youth sentences, the prevalence of car thefts, and the significant trauma inflicted on victims.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and the defendant's age.

The Crown sought a five-year jail sentence, while the defence proposed three years.

The accused, Mohammed Shaikh, faced charges of impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

He brought a Charter application alleging violations of his rights under sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude breath samples.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, and the breath demand was valid, not violating section 8.

The court also found no unreasonable delay in facilitating the right to counsel under section 10(b), as police acted reasonably given safety and privacy concerns.

Consequently, the Charter applications were dismissed, the breath samples were admitted, and the accused was found guilty on both counts of impaired operation and over 80.

The Ministry of Labour charged A & L Hammer Workforce Management Inc. and its sole director, Liwayway Coluna Miranda, with failing to comply with orders to pay employee wages and recruitment fees under the Employment Standards Act and Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act.

The defendants pleaded not guilty, with the corporation's trial proceeding ex-parte.

Ms. Miranda raised a due diligence defence, claiming her business was destroyed and accounts frozen due to a CBSA raid and subsequent criminal charges (later withdrawn).

The court found that Ms. Miranda failed to demonstrate due diligence, as she continued to recruit foreign nationals despite financial difficulties and did not make reasonable efforts to secure funds or engage with the Ministry.

Both the corporation and Ms. Miranda were found guilty on all counts.

The Applicant, F.W., facing a sexual assault charge, brought a s. 276 application to introduce "other sexual activity" (OSA) evidence of the complainant, M.M., related to DNA evidence, capacity to consent, and inconsistencies in her statement.

The court, applying the s. 276 regime, balanced the probative value against the prejudice.

The court allowed limited cross-examination of the complainant regarding sexual activity at the nightclub/vicinity on the night of the incident and permitted examination of Crown witness S.R. and the Applicant regarding their sexual activity with the complainant, finding significant probative value for the defence's issues of consent and DNA explanation, which outweighed the prejudice.

The Crown brought an application for two orders under the Criminal Code: to allow the complainant to testify outside the courtroom via closed-circuit television or Zoom, and to permit a court support dog to be present during her testimony.

The complainant, a victim of kidnapping, sexual assault, and torture, expressed significant anxiety about testifying in court.

The court granted both orders, finding that these testimonial aids would facilitate a full and candid account from the complainant and were in the interest of the proper administration of justice, balancing the truth-seeking function with the accused's right to a fair trial.

This decision addresses an application by the defendant for the appointment of a case management judge in a sexual assault proceeding.

The defendant sought the appointment after a judicial pre-trial judge directed that Charter motions, specifically a stay of proceedings related to alleged bail delay, be heard after the trial evidence on the merits.

The defence argued that the pre-trial judge lacked jurisdiction to set such a schedule over their objection and that a case management judge held exclusive authority for scheduling.

The court denied the application, affirming the judicial pre-trial judge's jurisdiction to set trial and motion schedules for efficiency, noting that decisions on stays of proceedings are typically deferred until trial evidence is complete to assess prejudice.

The court also clarified that the powers of a case management judge are not exclusive for scheduling and that the trial judge retains ultimate discretion to modify the schedule.

The Applicant, M.F., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal trial.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the end of trial was 677 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The court attributed 124 days of this delay to the defence for failing to raise 11(b) concerns in a timely manner after trial dates were set.

This reduced the net delay to 17.5 months, which falls below the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The offender, Francois Gauthier, was found guilty of two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

This decision addresses the sentencing, considering aggravating factors such as high speed, prior speeding ticket, conscious decision to continue driving with a compromised vehicle, and significant impact on victims.

Mitigating factors included no prior driving offences and genuine remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, rejecting a conditional sentence due to the seriousness of the offence and the offender's history of non-compliance with court orders.

A sentence of nine months imprisonment, followed by one year of probation with conditions addressing substance abuse and impulsive behaviour, and a three-year driving prohibition was imposed.

The victim fine surcharge was waived, and a transfer to Quebec for sentence service was recommended.

This endorsement addresses the collapse of a scheduled two-day criminal trial due to the defendant's last-minute guilty plea, without prior notice to the court or Crown.

The court highlights this as an example of ongoing case management challenges in high-volume provincial courts, despite new procedures like Trial Confirmation Court.

The decision emphasizes that such occurrences lead to inefficient use of precious trial time, causing delays for other matters, and stresses the shared responsibility of all parties, including counsel, in ensuring the efficient administration of justice.

The defendant, Dennis Rhodes, sought to bring a Charter application alleging unreasonable delay under section 11(b).

The Crown opposed the scheduling of the application, arguing it was untimely under a new practice direction requiring such motions to be heard four months before trial, and asserting that the trial commenced with an upcoming remote testimony motion.

The Ontario Court of Justice held that the remote testimony motion did not mark the start of the trial, which was scheduled for a later date.

The court further determined that because the practice direction's four-month notice requirement conflicted with the court rules requiring sixty days' notice, the rules prevailed.

Consequently, the court allowed the defendant's application to schedule the Charter motion under the sixty-day timeline.

Mark Godwin pleaded not guilty to impaired operation and over 80 mg.

The defence sought to exclude breath test results, alleging violations of Charter sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the police fulfilled their s. 10(b) obligations to facilitate access to counsel, the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable (no s. 8 breach), and the continued detention was lawful (no s. 9 breach) given the accused's high blood alcohol readings.

The court found the accused guilty of both charges, concluding that the breath test results were admissible and that there was ample evidence of impairment even without the readings.

August Greiner pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of dangerous operation of a conveyance, involving attacks on police officers and damage to property.

The incidents were linked to the accused's significant, largely untreated mental health issues, exacerbated by recent personal losses.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, emphasizing the accused's mental health and ongoing treatment.

The court imposed a 270-day conditional sentence, followed by 24 months probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence could be achieved through a conditional sentence, and that public protection was best served by the accused's continued mental health treatment, which was central to the offence.

The defendants, Jamal and Jamis Yusuf, sought to reopen their trial after conviction for assault causing bodily harm and forcible confinement, and subsequent appeals to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada.

The application was based on a new affidavit from co-accused Aziz Pauls, who did not testify at trial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed evidence failed to meet the credibility and impact requirements of the test for reopening a trial after conviction, particularly given the strong video evidence and prior judicial findings.

The decision text and citation were not provided, so the requested case metadata cannot be extracted from the record supplied.