Patrick Travers

The defendant, Nathan Gagnon, was tried on two counts: sexual assault (s. 271 Criminal Code) and sexual exploitation (s. 153(1) Criminal Code) involving a 16-year-old drug-addicted complainant.

The Crown alleged vitiated consent due to a power imbalance (s. 273.1(2)(c)) and an exploitative relationship.

The defence conceded sexual touching but argued consent was not vitiated and the relationship was not exploitative.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the defendant and the complainant, noting the complainant's impaired memory due to drug use and potential hindsight bias.

Ultimately, the court found that both the Crown's theory and the defence's position might reasonably be true, leaving a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.

The defendant, Ganon Nathan, applied for directed verdicts of acquittal on charges of sexual assault and sexual exploitation.

The court reviewed the legal tests for directed verdicts and the essential elements of the offences, particularly concerning vitiated consent due to abuse of a position of power (sexual assault) and the existence of an exploitative relationship (sexual exploitation).

The court found sufficient evidence on all essential elements for both charges, including evidence of a power imbalance and an exploitative relationship, and dismissed the application for directed verdicts.

The defendant, Mahdi Kamal Afrah, pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, discharging a firearm with intent to endanger, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and breaching a release order.

The offences involved a shooting in a public parking garage where one victim sustained a non-life-threatening gunshot wound.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of the firearm offences, and significant mitigating factors, such as the defendant's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and severe past trauma (abuse in Somalia, motor vehicle accident, mental health issues).

The court also gave significant mitigation for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including a hand injury due to inadequate prison care and prolonged lockdowns.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence, while the defence advocated for 5 years.

The four applicant defendants, charged with multiple residential break and enters, brought pre-trial Charter applications alleging violations of their rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

They challenged the lawfulness of their arrests, the subsequent searches, the promptness and language of their arrest notifications, and the implementation of their right to counsel.

One applicant also alleged a s. 8 breach regarding video surveillance in his holding cell.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the applications, finding that police had reasonable grounds for the arrests and that the searches were lawful.

While the court found a s. 10(b) implementation breach for two applicants due to unexplained delays in contacting counsel, it declined to exclude the seized clothing under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for domestic assault, arguing the trial judge made fundamental errors in assessing credibility.

Specifically, the appellant alleged the trial judge improperly used prior discreditable conduct evidence, used the complainant's lack of exaggeration to buttress her credibility, and relied on ungrounded common sense assumptions.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were grounded in the evidence and entitled to deference.

The court emphasized that appellate courts should not dissect trial reasons in a search for technical errors.

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter application to exclude evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was misleading and failed to disclose reasonable grounds.

The court applied the standard of review for search warrants, finding that despite some minor errors and omissions, the amplified record contained reliable evidence that might reasonably be believed on which the warrant could have issued.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was involved in a bank fraud scheme and that evidence would be found in his home and vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

This criminal trial involved three accused charged with various firearm-related offences following a shooting incident.

The Crown's case relied heavily on video surveillance, expert evidence on "characteristics of an armed person," and gunshot residue (GSR) analysis.

The court acquitted two accused, Sentoree Kamara and Shaquille Woodcock, finding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly noting the limitations of the "characteristics of an armed person" evidence and potential GSR contamination.

However, the court found Shierine Shkais guilty of possession of a firearm, concluding that her questions about "minimums" while detained, combined with the firearm being found in her purse, indicated the requisite knowledge.

The accused, Damion Lewis, faced charges including uttering threats, using a firearm while threatening, theft of mail, and various firearm possession offences.

The trial proceeded in two phases, with the Crown reopening its case to prove the accused's date of birth for firearm authorization purposes.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility, finding her evidence generally unreliable due to inconsistencies and fear.

Consequently, Lewis was acquitted of the threat and firearm-related threat charges (Counts 1, 2, 3).

However, he was found guilty of theft of mail (Count 4), possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (Count 5), possession of a prohibited firearm without a license and registration certificate (Count 6), and carrying a concealed weapon (Count 8).

Count 7, which was a lesser included offence of Count 6, was found guilty but stayed under the Kineapple principle.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of the accused's statement regarding his date of birth, finding it voluntary and not in violation of his Charter rights.

The Crown sought to reopen its case to prove the defendant's date of birth, which was necessary for firearm possession charges.

The defence argued the request was too late and that allowing it would prejudice the administration of justice.

The court found the request was made at the third stage of trial but was permissible as it concerned a formal rather than substantive defect, and the defendant would suffer no legal prejudice.

The application to reopen was granted.

The defendant, Damion Lewis, applied to exclude evidence (a loaded .357 Magnum revolver and ammunition) obtained during a search incident to arrest, arguing breaches of his section 8 Charter rights due to unlawful scope and execution of the search.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Lewis for theft of mail, making the initial search lawful.

However, the manner of the search was deemed unreasonable because an officer pointed an assault rifle at the handcuffed defendant and threatened to shoot him if he moved.

Despite this serious Charter breach, the court, applying the *Grant* framework, declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The high reliability of the evidence and society's heightened interest in addressing gun violence in Toronto outweighed the seriousness of the state conduct and the impact on the defendant's Charter interests, especially since the arresting officer acted in good faith and the evidence would have been discovered inevitably.

The applicants, charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder in a drive-by shooting, sought to limit the proposed testimony of the lead police investigator regarding video surveillance.

The Crown intended to have the officer testify that he identified the suspect vehicle following the victims' vehicle on the video.

Applying the principles from Walizadah, the court ruled that the officer could not testify that the vehicles on the video were similar or consistent with the vehicles involved in the shooting.

The officer was permitted only to place the videos in context regarding time and location and direct the jury's attention to specific times and vehicles, leaving the ultimate finding of fact to the jury.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown applied to admit a photograph of the deceased victim in the vehicle.

The defence objected on the basis that the photograph was inflammatory and lacked probative value.

The court ruled the photograph was of little to no probative value and excluded it, instead permitting the Crown to use leading questions to establish the non-contentious facts regarding the victim's position and gunshot wounds.

The accused and a co-accused were jointly charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder following a drive-by shooting.

During a pretrial motion, the Crown sought to admit a photograph of a handgun found on the accused's cell phone.

The court ruled the photograph admissible as circumstantial evidence of the accused's access to the type of weapon used in the shooting.

The court also addressed the admissibility of bad character evidence elicited by the co-accused in a cut-throat defence, noting it was admissible but required careful limiting instructions to the jury.

The accused, charged with first degree murder and attempted murder, brought a Corbett application to excise portions of his criminal record before testifying in his own defence.

The Crown agreed to exclude a prior sexual assault conviction but opposed excluding youth convictions for weapons offences.

The court allowed the application in part, permitting the Crown to cross-examine the accused on two of the four weapons-related convictions, finding that willful breaches of prior court orders are highly relevant to assessing credibility.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit three defendants to stand trial on charges of human trafficking and prostitution-related offences.

The court examined the essential elements of trafficking in persons under sections 279.01-279.04 of the Criminal Code and prostitution-related offences under sections 286.1-286.5.

The decision provides comprehensive analysis of the statutory framework, including the definition of exploitation, the requirement for exploitative purpose, and the distinction between trafficking and prostitution offences.

The court applied the legal test for committal at a preliminary inquiry.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether three accused should be committed to stand trial on charges of human trafficking, prostitution-related offences, assault, and uttering threats.

The complainant testified that she engaged in sex work from December 2014 to April 2015 under the control of the three accused.

The court analyzed the essential elements of trafficking in persons under section 279.01 of the Criminal Code and prostitution-related offences under sections 286.1 to 286.3.

The court committed all three accused to stand trial on various counts, finding sufficient evidence of control, direction, and influence over the complainant's movements and earnings for exploitative purposes.

The court discharged certain counts where insufficient evidence existed.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation and indeterminate detention for the accused following guilty pleas to sexual assault causing bodily harm, choking with intent to commit an indictable offence, being masked with intent to commit an indictable offence, and unlawful confinement.

The accused had committed multiple serious sexual assaults against young women in Quebec and Ontario, as well as an attempted sexual assault in Florida.

The court found that the accused met the dangerous offender criteria under s.753 of the Criminal Code and that there was no reasonable possibility of eventual control of his risk in the community.

The court rejected the defence position that a long-term offender designation with a definite sentence followed by a long-term supervision order would be adequate, finding that the accused's personality disorder combined with sexual deviance, his lack of genuine insight into his problems, and his ambivalence toward treatment rendered community-based management insufficient to protect public safety.

The three accused were charged with 32 armed robberies of gas stations and convenience stores.

Following their arrest after a foot pursuit, they were held for several hours before giving videotaped confessions.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings alleging police brutality, and challenged the admissibility of their statements and physical evidence seized.

The court dismissed the stay application, finding no evidence of police brutality, and upheld the lawfulness of the arrests and search warrants.

However, the court ruled the statements inadmissible because the Crown failed to prove voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt, largely due to the police's failure to video-record the critical 'pre-interviews' where the accused allegedly waived their right to counsel and agreed to confess.