Paul Aubin

The accused were arrested following a drug trafficking investigation where a youth sold fentanyl to an undercover officer.

Orgen Dorjee was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle with a large quantity of drugs, while Tenzin Dorjee was in the back seat next to a loaded firearm.

The Crown alleged they were engaged in a joint drug trafficking enterprise and were in constructive possession of each other's illicit items.

The court found Tenzin Dorjee guilty of possessing the loaded firearm, as it was in plain view and he fled from police.

However, the court found the evidence insufficient to prove a joint enterprise beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, Orgen Dorjee was acquitted of the firearm charges, and Tenzin Dorjee was acquitted of the drug charges.

The young person, who was sentenced to seven years for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, applied for a sentence review under s. 94(19) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The young person sought to convert the remaining seven months of his secure custody sentence to conditional supervision in the community.

The court found that the young person had made significant rehabilitative progress despite the lack of programming in adult detention centres.

Balancing the interests of society and the needs of the young person, the court ordered the young person's release on conditional supervision with strict conditions.

The offender pled guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

He was a 28-year-old first-time offender with severe substance use and psychiatric disorders.

Following his arrest, he achieved sustained remission and stabilized his mental health through treatment.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of two years less a day, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding that the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts and mental health vulnerabilities warranted a community-based sentence that would not jeopardize his recovery.

The offender, a 23-year-old international student with a G2 licence, was convicted of impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death after striking and killing an off-duty police officer.

The court considered the offender's G2 licence status, which prohibited driving with any alcohol in his system, as a statutory aggravating factor under s. 320.22(g) of the Criminal Code.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for impaired driving offences, the court sentenced the offender to 6 years in the penitentiary, less pre-trial custody credits, and imposed a 10-year driving prohibition.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL causing death.

The charges arose from a fatal collision on Major Mackenzie Drive in Markham, Ontario on September 14, 2022, in which the defendant's vehicle crossed the centre line and struck an oncoming vehicle driven by an off-duty police officer, resulting in the officer's death.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts.

The court rejected the defence argument that falling asleep at the wheel provides an absolute defence to dangerous driving, finding instead that the defendant's decision to drive while tired and under the influence of alcohol constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court also found that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol to any degree, satisfying the test for impaired driving.

The blood-alcohol analysis showing 80 mg/100 mL was admitted under the presumption of accuracy.

This is an addendum to a Garofoli ruling dismissing an application to quash a search warrant.

The original ruling was released on August 19, 2025.

The application involved a search warrant based substantially on evidence from a confidential informant, requiring extensive redactions to the Information to Obtain to protect informer privilege.

The initial ruling was sent only to the Crown to prevent inadvertent disclosure of the informant's identity.

Upon Crown counsel's request, one sentence in paragraph 13 of the ruling was redacted before release to defence counsel and the trial office.

The unredacted paragraph and pertinent emails are sealed as exhibits to preserve the record.

The court sentenced Fahmid Iqbal, a youthful first offender, for possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

After a detailed review of the facts, mitigating and aggravating factors, and relevant case law, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community under strict conditions, followed by two years of probation.

The decision discusses the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence in the circumstances.

The appellant, Isaiah Todd, appealed his conviction for possession of a loaded firearm and possession of a firearm while prohibited, following the dismissal of his s. 8 Charter application.

The Court of Appeal upheld the reviewing judge’s finding that the confidential informant’s information was compelling and corroborated, and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) established reasonable grounds for the search warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, Ahsanullah Salehi, was tried on multiple charges, including assault with a weapon and uttering threats, following a series of confrontations at a college campus.

The allegations involved two complainants, one of whom was allegedly struck with an imitation firearm and threatened.

The trial judge assessed the credibility of the complainants, the accused's police statement, and his girlfriend's testimony alongside campus surveillance footage.

Ultimately, the court found the accused guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and breach of probation, while acquitting him of one count of uttering threats.

The defendant was found guilty of several firearms and drug offences by a trial judge who provided brief oral reasons and promised written reasons to follow.

The trial judge subsequently retired without providing the written reasons.

Furthermore, the trial judge recorded convictions for seven counts, despite the defendant only being arraigned on five.

The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the brief oral reasons were insufficient to allow another judge to impose sentence under s. 669.2 of the Criminal Code.

Given the lack of reasons, the unarraigned convictions, and the resulting miscarriage of justice, the court granted the motion and declared a mistrial.

The accused applied to exclude evidence, including a firearm, seized from his home under a search warrant, arguing insufficient grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The court found insufficient grounds to establish an offence had been committed and that a firearm would be found in the home due to staleness of information and lack of clear evidence.

The application was granted, and the evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the seriousness of the police conduct (carelessness in disclosure) and the significant impact on the applicant's privacy interests.

Terrell Harrison pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and discharging a firearm with intent to wound after shooting his father.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the severity of the offence, and significant mitigating factors, such as his difficult childhood, family dysfunction, and sincere remorse.

The judge also factored in the unconscionable delay in obtaining the Enhanced Pre-sentence Report and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody.

The court imposed a sentence of seven years, concurrent on both counts, with credit for pre-sentence custody amounting to 5 years and 6 months, leaving 18 months left to serve.

The 17-year-old offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder and aggravated assault following a series of gang-related shootings.

The Crown applied to have the young person sentenced as an adult.

The court found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness, noting the youth's cognitive limitations, mental health issues, substance abuse, and vulnerability to older criminal peers.

The court also found that a youth sentence would be sufficient to hold the offender accountable.

The young person was sentenced to the maximum youth sentence of seven years for second degree murder, comprising four years in secure custody and three years of community supervision.

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness of the defendant's statement to an RCMP officer after her arrest for importing cocaine.

The defendant brought a cross-motion alleging violations of her Charter rights under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10 by a Canada Border Services Officer (BSO).

The court found the defendant's statement to the RCMP officer voluntary.

However, the court determined that the BSO violated the defendant's section 7 and 10 Charter rights by engaging in intrusive questioning, beyond routine border inspection, after particularized suspicion arose, without advising her of her rights to counsel and to remain silent.

Applying the Grant factors under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the seized drugs and the defendant's incriminating statements.

The applicant defendant challenged a search of his person and vehicle under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, arguing violations of Charter sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the police officer lacked objective and subjective reasonable grounds for the search, as the smell of marijuana and a marijuana stem were insufficient to establish current possession of unpackaged cannabis.

The officer's testimony regarding the stem and residue was found to lack veracity due to circumstantial evidence.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the serious state misconduct (bad faith, deliberate disregard for rights, misleading testimony) and significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

Consequently, the seized handgun, cannabis, and hashish were excluded from evidence, leading to an acquittal on the firearm charge.

The offender, a 26-year-old first-time offender, was found guilty by a jury of importing nearly two kilograms of heroin into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 13 years, while the defence proposed 9 to 11 years.

The court considered the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, community service, and counselling as mitigating factors against the severe aggravating nature of the offence.

The offender was sentenced to 10.5 years imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with mandatory weapons prohibitions and a DNA order.

Taylor Griffith was found guilty of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, trafficking in cocaine and crack cocaine, and failing to comply with probation and firearms prohibition orders.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the dangerous combination of guns and drugs, the quantity of drugs, and Griffith's prior record.

Mitigating factors included his youth, family support, remorse, and participation in rehabilitation programs while in custody.

The court also addressed a Charter violation claim for sentence reduction, finding no additional harm or prejudice connected to the breach of delaying contact with counsel.

A global sentence of 6 years imprisonment was imposed, with credit for 22 months of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 4 years and 2 months incarceration, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA order.

Taylor Griffith, charged with firearm and drug trafficking offenses, applied to exclude evidence seized during his arrest, alleging violations of his s. 8, s. 9, and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found the arrest and incidental search lawful, with objectively reasonable grounds based on police surveillance and observed hand-to-hand transactions.

However, a breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) occurred due to a delay in facilitating contact with a lawyer until after search warrants were executed.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that while the police conduct in delaying counsel was serious, the impact on the accused's Charter interests was minimal as the evidence (loaded firearm and drugs) was seized prior to the breach and was real, reliable, and crucial.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The Crown applied for a review of a bail order releasing the respondent, who was charged with 22 offences including firearms offences and dangerous driving following a shooting and police chase.

The reviewing judge admitted new evidence consisting of the respondent's parole officer's notes, which showed a history of non-compliance.

The judge revoked bail, finding that the respondent's detention was necessary on both the secondary ground (public safety) and the tertiary ground (maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice), given the overwhelming strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and the respondent's history of breaching court orders.

The accused was tried for prowling, a home invasion, and breach of probation.

The Crown alleged the accused was the masked prowler and the intruder who broke into the complainant's basement and assaulted him.

The court found the complainant's identification evidence unreliable due to poor lighting, discrepancies in physical descriptions, and a failed photo lineup.

However, the court found the accused guilty of breaching his probation by possessing a pellet gun, as CCTV footage proved he placed the gun in the trunk of his girlfriend's car.