Pamela Larmondin

The accused, Kadah Dematas, was charged with four counts related to offences committed during his arrest by police officers, including assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The trial focused on the accused's knowledge that the complainants were police officers, whether his actions were a reflex, and if he acted in self-defence.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, concluding that he intentionally assaulted both officers, knowing they were police, and was not acting in self-defence or reflexively.

Dematas was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against Detective Constable Subramaniam, and assault causing bodily harm against Detective Constable Miller.

He was found not guilty of assault with a weapon against Detective Constable Miller.

The matter was adjourned for sentencing.

Vilroy Edwards pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in a firearm and careless use of a firearm.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous nature of the sawed-off semi-automatic rifle, the accused's intricate involvement in arranging the sale and advising on its use, and the discharge of the firearm in a residential area.

Mitigating factors included his first offender status, young age at the time of the offence, guilty plea, acceptance of responsibility, remorse, and successful compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court also considered his difficult upbringing and the principle of restraint for young Black offenders.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence sought sixteen months.

The court imposed a total sentence of 912 days (approximately 2.5 years) for firearms trafficking and 18 months concurrent for careless use, after crediting 338 days for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition and a DNA sample order.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found 99 grams of cocaine hidden behind an intercom panel in a bedroom during a search warrant execution.

The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, arguing the bedroom belonged to the accused based on dated documents and large clothing found inside.

The accused testified he had moved to the basement months prior and that other individuals, including his brother, had access to the room.

The court applied the W.(D.) and Villaroman frameworks, finding the prosecution's circumstantial case weak and concluding the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude intercepted communications obtained under a Part VI wiretap authorization issued during a large‑scale police investigation into alleged fraud and violence within the Greater Toronto Area tow‑truck industry.

They argued the authorization was facially invalid, that the Information to Obtain failed to establish reasonable grounds, that the affiant made material omissions and misrepresentations, and that confidential informant summaries were inadequate.

The court conducted both facial and sub‑facial review of the ITO, including amplification based on cross‑examination of the affiant.

It held that any drafting defects could be addressed through severance and that the ITO, viewed holistically, established a credibly‑based probability that a criminal organization associated with the Paramount Group engaged in fraud and violence.

The court also found no deliberate misconduct by the affiant and ruled the judicial summaries provided a meaningful basis to challenge informant evidence.

The applicants, charged with offences related to a tow truck turf war, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) that supported a wiretap authorization.

The applicants argued that the affiant made material omissions and misrepresentations regarding witness statements and other evidence.

The court applied the Garofoli test and granted leave to cross-examine the affiant on three specific topics where omissions or misstatements could potentially undermine the preconditions for the authorization, while denying leave on other topics that merely challenged reasonable inferences drawn by the affiant.

On a pre-trial Charter application in a multi-accused organized crime prosecution, the applicants sought to prevent disclosure of residential address information in the common disclosure brief.

The court held that immediate disclosure of one applicant’s home address engaged and would arbitrarily infringe his s. 7 rights because there was credible evidence of a prior attempt on his life, disclosure would materially increase the danger to him and his family, and the record did not establish any real present need for co-accused to know the precise address to make full answer and defence.

The court rejected arguments grounded in Stinchcombe, parity among accused, and avoidance of future disclosure litigation.

Relief was denied respecting the father’s address because the evidence did not establish danger to him or a sufficient causal connection.

The Crown was directed to work with defence counsel on redactions, and interim sealing orders were granted.

The applicant sought judicial interim release on two separate matters involving firearm charges.

The Crown opposed release on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The applicant proposed release to two sureties with strict house arrest, electronic monitoring, and a quarantine period.

The court granted the application, finding that the proposed plan adequately addressed concerns regarding attendance in court, public safety, and confidence in the administration of justice.

The decision considered the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, the proposed sureties' reliability, and the impact of COVID-19 on pre-trial detention.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking offences following a mass arrest operation, brought a Charter application alleging breaches of her ss. 7, 10(b), and 12 rights.

She claimed excessive force upon arrest, inhumane treatment during a lengthy wait in a police cruiser, and an unlawful strip search.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant's testimony regarding pain and suffering to be fabricated and contradicted by video evidence.

The court held that the police conduct was reasonable under the circumstances of the mass arrests, and the strip search was justified as the applicant was entering the prison population.

The offender pleaded guilty to firearm-related offences including unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and careless storage of ammunition.

The court imposed a 28-month custodial sentence (after credit for restrictive bail conditions) on the primary charge, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts.

The court emphasized the principles of deterrence and denunciation while considering the offender's early guilty plea, first-time offender status, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year firearms prohibition, a DNA order, forfeiture orders, and a victim fine surcharge.

The offenders were found guilty of conspiracy to import 112 kg of cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The cocaine was hidden in wooden pallets in a sea container shipped from Guyana.

The court found both offenders were principal participants in a sophisticated importation scheme.

Buttazzoni, who had a prior drug conviction in the US and made threats of violence, was sentenced to 17 years.

Ramlall, a first-time offender who received the pallets at his home, was sentenced to 15 years.

Both received credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.

During a trial for drug importation, the Crown sought to admit statements made by the accused to police following his arrest.

The accused made an initial statement in a police cruiser and a subsequent video-recorded statement at the police station.

The court found the cruiser statement involuntary due to an incomplete record and inducements offered by the officer.

Applying the derived confessions rule, the court also excluded the subsequent video statement, finding it was causally, temporally, and contextually connected to the first tainted statement.

The accused were tried before a judge alone on charges arising from a large-scale cocaine importation scheme involving approximately 112 kilograms of cocaine shipped from Guyana to Canada in a sea container.

The Crown alleged conspiracy to import cocaine, importing cocaine, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, relying on surveillance, intercepted communications, controlled delivery evidence, and admissions.

The court found that two of the accused knowingly participated in a conspiracy to import cocaine and later exercised possession of the drugs for trafficking purposes, based largely on circumstantial evidence and intercepted communications demonstrating knowledge, control, and shared financial interest in the shipment.

However, the court found insufficient evidence that any accused actually committed the offence of importing under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act because their involvement occurred after the drugs entered Canada.

Two accused were acquitted entirely due to reasonable doubt regarding knowledge and participation.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash their committals for trial following a preliminary inquiry on charges relating to a large cocaine importation scheme.

Police had intercepted a shipping container containing 112 kilograms of cocaine concealed in wooden pallets and conducted a controlled delivery, leading to arrests after the pallets were opened.

The applicants argued there was insufficient evidence of knowledge of the cocaine to permit committal.

Applying the limited weighing standard from R. v. Arcuri, the court held that the circumstantial evidence permitted reasonable inferences of knowledge and participation, including involvement in opening the container and dismantling pallets containing narcotics valued at approximately $4 million.

The court concluded that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer guilt and that the preliminary inquiry judge did not err in committing the applicants to stand trial.

During a criminal proceeding involving charges of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and conspiracy, the accused requested interpretation in the Ibo language.

A voir dire was conducted to determine whether two proposed interpreters were competent to interpret for the accused during the upcoming jury trial.

The court considered the constitutional right to interpretation under s. 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and reviewed guidance from appellate authority concerning interpreter competency.

After examining the interpreters’ accreditation status, training, testing results, and courtroom experience, the court found that neither candidate met the required standard of competency for a Superior Court criminal trial.

The court held that the presumption of incompetence for non‑accredited interpreters had not been rebutted and directed that other qualified interpreters be sought.

The accused was sentenced following conviction after trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking involving 111.85 kilograms of cocaine.

The court considered the extraordinary quantity, high purity, and multi‑million‑dollar value of the drugs, as well as the accused’s prior conviction for a similar offence involving multi‑kilogram quantities.

Although the court found the accused’s role was limited to that of a courier, the circumstances demonstrated a high level of organization, planning, and trusted involvement in a large trafficking enterprise.

Emphasis was placed on denunciation and both general and specific deterrence.

A penitentiary sentence of 15 years was imposed with credit for pre‑trial custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The appellant, detained under a security certificate pursuant to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, appealed a Superior Court decision staying his application for habeas corpus.

He argued the Federal Court could not provide a timely remedy for his constitutional claims.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Superior Court properly declined jurisdiction because the Federal Court has concurrent jurisdiction, specialized expertise in immigration and national security, and an ongoing process that should not be circumvented.