Court of Justice

Three young persons were charged with robbery with a firearm, use of an imitation firearm during robbery, and related offences arising from a September 28, 2017 armed robbery of an escort at the Holiday Inn in Oakville.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from the victim, corroborating evidence from an adult co-accused, hotel security video surveillance, cellular phone records and extraction reports, and a hearsay statement from a hotel guest.

The defence challenged the identification of the accused and the reliability of the Crown's witnesses.

The court found that the Crown established identity beyond a reasonable doubt through a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence, including credible eyewitness testimony, forensic cellular analysis, and video surveillance.

However, the court found reasonable doubt as to whether an actual firearm or an imitation firearm was used.

A ruling on the admissibility of a statement made by a young person (YF) charged with first degree murder.

The Crown sought to admit an inculpatory statement made during police interrogation.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the preconditions for admissibility under section 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act were satisfied.

The court found that the Crown failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the enhanced procedural protections required by the YCJA were complied with, and ruled the statement inadmissible.

A young person was charged with robbery contrary to section 343(b) of the Criminal Code following a violent group attack on a complainant at a basketball court in Toronto on August 12, 2015.

The central issue was identity.

The Crown relied on eyewitness identification evidence, recognition evidence from a security supervisor, and photographic evidence.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The court found that while the eyewitnesses were credible and honest, the identification evidence was unreliable due to the chaotic circumstances of the attack, the poor quality of the photographs, discrepancies in witness descriptions, and the limited nature of the security supervisor's prior acquaintance with the defendant.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the individual in the red t-shirt involved in the robbery.

A young person pled guilty to robbery in connection with two bank robberies committed in November 2017.

The Crown sought a custody and supervision order for 12 months followed by two years probation.

Defence counsel sought probation for 12 to 15 months.

The court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order for six months followed by one year probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of the imitation firearm.

The sentencing considered the serious nature of the offences, the implicit threats of violence, the young person's background including trauma and systemic factors, expressions of remorse, lack of prior record, and compliance with bail conditions over 33 months.

A young person (J.J.) was charged with three sexual offences arising from events at a party where the complainant (A.G.), who was heavily intoxicated, was sexually assaulted by multiple males.

The accused was charged with sexual assault with a weapon (hairbrush), sexual assault as a party to the offence, and sexual assault simpliciter.

The court found that the complainant did not consent to any of the sexual touching and that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The court rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent, finding no air of reality to the defence.

The accused was found guilty on all three counts.

The accused was arrested for drug-impaired driving after being found asleep at the wheel of a motor vehicle in the middle of a road.

Police obtained blood samples pursuant to a newly enacted provision of the Criminal Code that had come into force only four days prior.

The trial judge found multiple Charter breaches: failure to inform the accused of a drug possession charge before consulting counsel (not a breach but a factor in cumulative analysis); failure to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel after making a blood demand at the police station; failure to provide a further opportunity to consult counsel when the hospital refused to take blood samples without the accused's consent; and failure to obtain valid consent to the seizure of blood samples.

The blood samples and toxicology evidence were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Without the excluded evidence, the Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by a drug.

The accused was acquitted.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection under section 74(2)(h) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (emotional harm), with no further orders required.

The respondent mother alleged sexual abuse by the father, while the father denied the allegations.

The court denied the summary judgment motion, finding that the Society's evidentiary record was insufficient and contained inadmissible hearsay and opinion evidence.

The court determined that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding both the finding of need of protection and the appropriate disposition.

A child protection society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that an eleven-year-old child was in need of protection and should be placed in the care of the father under a six-month supervision order with conditions regarding access to the mother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a trial.

The court granted summary judgment, finding that the child had suffered physical and emotional harm due to ongoing parental conflict and that the mother had not demonstrated sufficient insight or change to warrant a different disposition.

The court found no genuine issue for trial on the issues of protection, disposition, or access.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited, modified firearm and possession of that firearm in contravention of a court order prohibiting him from possessing firearms.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years less credit for pretrial custody.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, crediting 1,032 days of pretrial custody (2 years, 10 months, and 2 days), with 900 days attributed to the firearm possession and 132 days consecutive for the breach of the prohibition order.

The sentencing was significantly influenced by the offender's Gladue report, which documented severe intergenerational trauma stemming from residential schools, multiple family deaths, and systemic disadvantage affecting his moral culpability.

The court emphasized rehabilitation and restorative justice through Indigenous community support services rather than additional incarceration.

Three young persons were charged with aggravated assault, possession of a weapon, and armed robbery arising from an incident at a hotel in Toronto on December 20, 2014.

The Crown's case relied primarily on in-court identification evidence from two witnesses who had failed to identify the accused in photo line-ups conducted shortly after the incident.

The court found that the identification evidence was fraught with serious deficiencies, including the witnesses' prior exposure to a YouTube video featuring the accused, inconsistencies in witness statements, and the generic nature of the descriptions provided.

The court concluded that the Crown had failed to prove the identity of the perpetrators beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted all three accused on all counts.

Two young persons charged with home invasions to facilitate vehicle theft applied for stays of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 18 months and 11 days.

The Crown acted proactively to secure earlier trial dates and the prosecution of multiple co-accused jointly was found to be in the interest of justice.

The court dismissed the application, finding the delay reasonable given the complexity of prosecuting multiple co-defendants and the need to accommodate counsel schedules.