Patrick Henry Metzler

Kayil Torres pled guilty to possessing and accessing child exploitation material on multiple occasions in 2022.

The court considered extensive forensic evidence, expert psychological assessments diagnosing Torres with pedophilia, and his personal circumstances including youth, remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The Crown sought a 2-year penitentiary sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the Defence argued for a conditional sentence based on mitigating factors.

The court found the aggravating factors, including the volume and nature of the material and the offender’s high blameworthiness, outweighed mitigating factors.

It imposed an 18-month concurrent jail sentence on both counts, a 2-year probation order, and ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA order and a s. 161 order restricting contact with children.

This criminal trial concerned Philip Zivkovic, charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand under section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the defendant wilfully refused to provide a sample after being found asleep at the wheel of his vehicle.

The defendant argued that his refusal was not unequivocal due to confusion regarding his right to counsel and the consequences of non-compliance, exacerbated by conflicting information from police officers and his anxiety.

The court, applying the "single transaction test," found that the defendant's immediate change in demeanor and genuine offer to provide a sample upon arrest, coupled with the continued availability of the screening device, raised a reasonable doubt as to whether his refusal was unequivocal.

Consequently, the defendant was found not guilty.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a December 6, 2018 incident where a civilian witness observed erratic driving on Highway 403 and called 911.

Police attended at an ice arena parking lot where the defendant was located.

The defendant failed a roadside screening device test and was arrested.

Breath samples revealed readings of 340 and 330 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the detention, the timing of the ASD demand, the provision of rights to counsel, and the reasonableness of grounds for arrest.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the defendant guilty of both offences.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving on March 3, 2018, after police responded to a report of an unconscious driver on Spadina Avenue in Toronto.

The defendant was found asleep at the wheel in a live lane of traffic with the engine running.

Police observed signs consistent with impairment including the smell of alcohol and bloodshot eyes.

The defendant was arrested and advised of his rights to counsel.

The Crown did not rely on breath sample results due to an error in the demand read by police.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest and no Charter breaches regarding arrest or rights to counsel.

However, on the merits of the impairment charge, the court found a reasonable doubt existed and acquitted the defendant.

The defendant brought a motion to compel production of an Approved Screening Device (ASD) printout and notes from two police officers regarding the storage and handling of the ASD used during a RIDE program stop.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown resisted disclosure, arguing the ASD printout was a third-party record governed by the O'Connor test and that the officer notes were not relevant.

The court found the ASD printout was a third-party record not subject to first-party disclosure obligations and dismissed that portion of the application.

However, the court ordered disclosure of the officer notes from the two assisting officers, finding they were potentially relevant to the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence, particularly given the anticipated evidence regarding ambient temperature conditions and the placement of the ASD prior to testing.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on September 24, 2015.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and sought to exclude breath test results on the grounds that his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(a) were infringed.

The court found that the officer lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant for impaired driving, as the observed driving infractions were minimal and the alleged signs of impairment (slurred speech, weaving) were not credibly established.

The court also found breaches of the defendant's section 10(a) and 10(b) rights due to a 14-15 minute delay in providing reasons for detention and access to counsel.

While the section 10 breach was found not to warrant exclusion of evidence, the section 8 breach was found to be serious and, combined with the lack of evidence of impairment, led to the exclusion of the breath test results.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood (Over 80).

The Crown's case relied entirely on breath samples obtained at a police RIDE checkpoint.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of her detention and the admissibility of the breath samples under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the defendant was arrested without lawful authority because the police officer failed to conduct a mandatory roadside screening test before making the arrest, contrary to section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was acquitted.

Additionally, the court found that the defendant's right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter had been violated due to Crown and institutional delay spanning nearly 15 months.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud over $5,000, having defrauded her employer, the Toronto Dominion Bank, of $1,778,543.57 over approximately 14 years while employed as a senior manager with authority over internal accounts.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while defence counsel sought a lengthy conditional sentence with probation.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 17 months (14 months on count 1 and 3 months consecutive on count 2), rejecting a conditional sentence despite significant mitigating factors including full restitution, guilty plea, and evidence of major depressive illness.

The court also imposed a five-year employment prohibition under section 380.2.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b).

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence on the basis that her section 8 Charter rights were violated when she was video and audio recorded using the toilet in a holding cell.

The court found a breach of section 8 rights but declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the evidence.

On the merits, the court acquitted on the impaired driving charge but convicted on the over 80 charge based on the admissible breath test results.

Following a prior finding of civil contempt for breaching a court order, the court addressed the appropriate sanction for the contemnor.

The moving parties sought incarceration, arguing that a monetary penalty would have little practical effect.

The court emphasized that imprisonment for civil contempt is a remedy of last resort and considered mitigating factors including the contemnor’s written and in‑person apology and stated willingness to make restitution.

A suspended sentence was imposed with conditions including compliance with all court orders, fulfillment of undertakings in the apology letter, community service, and surrender of firearms.

The Crown brought a bail review under s. 521 of the Criminal Code seeking to revoke the accused’s release order on serious firearms and criminal organization charges arising from a police investigation.

The reviewing judge found that the justice of the peace misapprehended aspects of the evidentiary record and failed to adequately analyze the tertiary ground factors under s. 515(10)(c).

Additional corroborative evidence, including a vehicle rental contract and extensive wiretap evidence, significantly strengthened the Crown’s case linking the accused to firearm trafficking activity.

Considering the apparent strength of the prosecution’s case, the gravity of the offences, the firearm-related circumstances, and the potential for lengthy penitentiary sentences, detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Crown’s application succeeded and the accused’s bail was revoked.