Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The Crown applied for a psychiatric assessment of Lionel Brian Williams under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code, on reasonable grounds that he might be found a dangerous offender or long-term offender due to a serious personal injury offence (assault with a weapon).

The court reviewed extensive evidence including police synopses, CPIC records, and transcripts, noting Mr. Williams' long history of violent and non-violent offences, his marginalized status, and patterns of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour.

The court found the low threshold for ordering an assessment met, emphasizing the procedural nature of s. 752.1 and the importance of protecting public safety.

The application for psychiatric assessment was granted.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the defendant operating his vehicle where cocaine was found in the centre console.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and constructive possession, emphasizing that vehicle ownership does not create a presumption of knowledge or possession.

Due to numerous gaps in the prosecution's evidence, including lack of forensic links, inconsistent vehicle control, and insufficient investigation into other potential users, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's knowledge and control of the cocaine.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl, a Schedule I substance, after a friend died from consuming the drug he sold.

The Crown sought a six-year custodial sentence, emphasizing the victim's death and the dangerous nature of fentanyl.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day, highlighting the accused's status as an addict trafficker, his significant rehabilitative efforts, early guilty plea, and compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years probation, including house arrest, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The decision distinguished between commercial traffickers and addict traffickers, emphasizing rehabilitation and the principle of proportionality.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and having an excess blood alcohol concentration (BAC).

He brought a Charter application to exclude breath test results, alleging violations of his ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found that the initial arrest for failing to remain at the scene of an accident was unlawful, constituting a s. 9 Charter violation, as the offence was not legally applicable to the facts.

A s. 10(b) violation also occurred due to the police's inadvertent failure to fully advise Duty Counsel of all charges, delaying the defendant's ability to receive complete legal advice.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the impact on the defendant's Charter-protected interests strongly favoured exclusion of the breath test results.

Without the breath readings, the excess BAC charge could not be proven.

The court also found insufficient evidence to establish impaired operation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, both remaining charges were dismissed.

The accused, Hemraj Lakhan, was charged with sexual assault and failure to comply with a probation order.

The central issue at trial was whether the complainant, K.L., consented to the sexual touching.

The court found K.L. to be a credible witness but had significant concerns about the reliability of her testimony due to memory issues, admitted drug use around the time of the incident, and inconsistent/contradictory statements during cross-examination, including agreeing that her initial claim of non-consent was "make believe" and that she had initiated sex.

Despite corroborating evidence of sexual contact (DNA) and the complainant's distraught post-event demeanour, the court determined that the Crown failed to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of both charges.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Jayson Pothier, an Indigenous offender who pleaded guilty to serious charges including robbery, break and enter, and theft.

The court applied Gladue principles, considering the offender's extensive criminal record, which included prior penitentiary sentences for similar offences, alongside his profound history of childhood trauma and addiction.

The judge emphasized the systemic factors contributing to Indigenous overrepresentation in the criminal justice system and the need for a restorative approach.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a conditional sentence, focusing on the offender's commitment to recovery and the availability of community supports, rather than a further period of incarceration.

The Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, through Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan, brought the fifth application to unseal search warrants, production orders, and Informations to Obtain (ITOs) in the ongoing investigation into the double murder of Honey and Barry Sherman.

The police agreed to unseal the first four ITOs with redactions, citing that they were at an early stage and of a more general nature.

The applicant challenged the redactions as overly cautious.

The court partially granted the application, unsealing certain medical and background information while maintaining redactions for holdback and hallmark information, potential persons of interest, motive, Apotex business information, and estate information.

The remaining eight ITOs were kept fully sealed as they were of a more focused nature and disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation.

The accused was charged with mischief, theft under $5,000, break and entry and theft, and breach of a recognizance of bail.

The trial examined whether the accused unlawfully entered the home of his former partner and removed items without permission.

The court found the accused guilty of breach of bail and break and entry with theft, but acquitted him of mischief due to insufficient evidence regarding the broken basement window.

The theft charge was stayed as subsumed by the break and entry conviction.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession, purchase, or receipt of unmarked cigarettes for the purpose of sale contrary to Section 29(1) of the Tobacco Act.

The Crown sought a fine of $29,819.00 plus 15 months probation.

The defendant sought a suspended sentence with two years probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, finding exceptional circumstances warranting relief from the statutory minimum fine of $89,959.25 under Section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court considered the defendant's financial hardship, unemployment due to vision loss, administrative penalties totaling $161,310.26, and the fact that the defendant was a delivery person rather than the primary actor in the scheme.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence sought to exclude breath test results on the basis of alleged Charter violations under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found no breach of section 8 or 9 rights, as the initial police conversation was lawful and the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the odour of alcohol.

The court also found no breach of section 10(b) rights, as police made diligent efforts to facilitate the accused's right to counsel of choice and provided adequate information regarding legal rights.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The defendant was charged with two offences: having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

The defendant admitted to being impaired and having a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The sole issue was whether the defendant had care or control of the motor vehicle.

The defendant entered his truck after declining a driving service, sat in the driver's seat, then moved to the passenger seat while waiting for another driving service to arrive.

The court found that the defendant had a concrete plan to obtain a ride home through a driving service and would not have changed his mind about driving.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol on April 17, 2014.

The Crown's case relied on observations of poor driving on the Gardiner Expressway, evidence of alcohol consumption, and the smell of alcohol on the accused's breath.

The defence argued that the impaired driving could be explained by fatigue and distraction from cell phone use, rather than alcohol impairment.

The court found that while the driving was severely impaired, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the impairment was caused by alcohol rather than other factors.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences committed on July 2, 2015: assault with a weapon (metal pole), assault causing bodily harm, and threatening death.

The offences arose from a domestic violence incident involving the defendant and her former common-law partner.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought six to nine months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a blended sentence of one day imprisonment on the threatening death charge, combined with a six-month conditional sentence on the assault charges, followed by three years probation.

The sentence considered the defendant's lack of prior record, guilty plea, bail compliance, and rehabilitative efforts, balanced against the serious nature of the offences, their commission in the presence of children, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown brought an application under section 490(9)(d) of the Criminal Code for forfeiture of USD $32,279.78 and CAD $3,060.50 seized from the respondent's account.

The respondent had been acquitted of all charges, including money laundering.

Both parties agreed the funds were proceeds of crime from an illegal ephedrine exportation scheme.

The court granted the forfeiture order despite acknowledging that TD Bank had violated a Superior Court Restraint Order by withdrawing $35,000 from the account and sending it to Citi Bank, and despite the Crown's minimal efforts to enforce the breach.

The court found that the funds remained proceeds of crime and that Parliament's intention to deprive offenders of criminal proceeds outweighed the equitable considerations arising from TD Bank's breach.

The Crown appealed acquittals on two Highway Traffic offences entered by a Justice of the Peace.

The trial judge erred in granting a non-suit motion brought by the defence before the prosecution had completed its case.

A non-suit motion must be brought only after the prosecution has formally closed its case, allowing the Crown to present its full evidence before the defence challenges it.

Additionally, the police officer had provided some evidence of identification by testifying that the defendant was the driver, which was sufficient to pass the non-suit threshold.

The appeal was allowed and the parties agreed to a substituted conviction to a lesser offence rather than a retrial.

The appellant appealed his convictions for three Highway Traffic Act offences.

The Crown withdrew two charges during oral argument, leaving only the charge of disobeying a sign under section 182(2) of the HTA.

The appellant's defence was that the prohibition signs at the intersection were not visible to him and he was unaware he was breaking the law.

At trial, the Justice of the Peace refused to grant an adjournment to allow the appellant to print photographs from his cell phone showing the sign placement and visibility.

The appellate court found this refusal to be an overriding and palpable error.

Upon review of the photographic evidence, the court concluded that no reasonable driver in the appellant's position would have seen the signs and allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and substituting a finding of not guilty.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code.

The accused alleged that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated due to institutional delay of 449 days (approximately 15 months) between the information being sworn and the scheduled trial date.

The court found that the delay exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months and that the accused had suffered actual prejudice including stress from the adjourned trial date, employer oversight of criminal proceedings, restrictions on access to his daughter, and increased legal fees.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting and touching a child for a sexual purpose contrary to sections 271 and 151 of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was credibility.

The complainant, an 11-year-old girl with Global Development Delay, testified that the accused sexually interfered with her in his apartment.

The accused denied the allegations and argued that opportunities for such conduct were limited.

The court found the complainant credible and convicted the accused of touching the child for a sexual purpose under section 151, staying the conviction for sexual assault under section 271 pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with assault and uttering a threat to cause death against his wife following an incident on March 23, 2013.

The case turned entirely on credibility, with the complainant and accused providing diametrically opposed accounts of the altercation.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence as implausible and evasive.

The court convicted the accused on both counts after finding that the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery while armed with a crowbar during a home invasion.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence while the defence sought a two-year-less-one-day reformatory sentence plus probation.

The court imposed a reformatory sentence, finding this an exceptional case where restorative justice principles, rehabilitation, and the offender's remarkable post-offence conduct warranted a sentence outside the typical home invasion tariff range, despite the serious nature of the offence and its devastating impact on the victims.