Paul Mergler

The defendant, Rodrigo Flores-Romero, was convicted by a jury of manslaughter in the death of a nearly 3-year-old child.

The Crown sought a 12-year sentence, while the defence proposed 6-8 years.

The court found the offence to be an aggravated manslaughter, emphasizing the victim's vulnerability, the breach of trust, the brutality of the assault, and the defendant's calculated efforts to conceal the crime.

The court rejected the defendant's claim of accidental injury and lack of genuine remorse.

Considering statutory directives for denunciation and deterrence, and mitigating factors such as the defendant's personal challenges and pre-trial custody, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with 4 years credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 6 years remaining.

The accused was charged with sexual interference against a young relative.

The allegations involved incidents occurring during overnight visits when the complainant was between four and eight years old.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence against the accused's denial and the limited opportunity to commit the offences.

Applying the W.(D.) principles, the court found the accused's evidence, supported by his wife's testimony regarding the physical layout of the home and timeline of events, raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused, Luz Adriana Gonzalez-Valbuena, pleaded guilty to ten counts of human trafficking, one global count of receiving material benefit from human trafficking, and eight counts of withholding travel documents for the purpose of human trafficking.

The court considered the sophisticated and industrial-scale nature of the labour trafficking scheme, which exploited vulnerable Mexican foreign nationals over four years, involving threats, illegal deductions, and substandard living conditions.

Aggravating factors included the duration, number of victims (21), severe victim impact, and the accused's prior criminal record.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, the accused's own history as a victim of sexual trafficking, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The Crown sought 11 years custody, while the defence sought 6-7 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years custody, minus presentence custody credit.

The accused was charged with arson endangering life and arson damaging property following a fire in his apartment.

The accused, who was found unconscious and badly burned, testified he had no memory of the event and no motive to harm himself.

The court rejected the defence of automatism due to a lack of expert evidence.

However, the court found the Crown's expert fire investigator's opinion unreliable regarding the intentional setting of the fires.

Given the lack of motive and the gaps in the expert evidence, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the fires were intentionally or recklessly set.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to three trafficking-related charges involving significant quantities of carfentanil, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine.

The court denied the accused's application for bail pending sentence, finding that he posed a substantial likelihood of reoffending and that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, with concurrent sentences on remaining counts, after considering mitigating factors including the accused's youth, family support, and employment history, as well as aggravating factors including his prior trafficking conviction, the dangerous nature of the drugs, and the large quantities involved.

The court also granted presentence custody credit, lockdown credit, and COVID-19 related credit.

The accused challenged the validity of two search warrants issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on the basis that they violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a Garofoli application to determine whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrants.

The accused also brought a constitutional challenge to the "Step Six" procedure and sought the appointment of amicus curiae.

The court rejected the constitutional challenge, declined to appoint amicus, and found that the warrants could have been issued based on credible, compelling, and corroborated information from a confidential informant combined with independent police investigation, including OPP wiretap evidence of firearms trafficking.

Eduardo Bohorquez and Qasim Siddiqi were found guilty by a jury of sexual assault with another person contrary to s. 272(1)(d) of the Criminal Code.

The court was tasked with imposing sentence.

The offenders, sexual predators, lured a 19-year-old complainant, S., to Bohorquez's home for non-consensual sexual activity, which they video recorded.

The court rejected the offenders' claims of consent or honest but mistaken belief in consent, emphasizing the power imbalance and the complainant's fear.

The impact on the victim was severe, leading to PTSD and a suicide attempt.

Bohorquez was identified as the leader and more aggressive participant, while Siddiqi was an enthusiastic follower.

The court considered sentencing objectives of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, noting the aggravated nature of the offence.

Bohorquez was sentenced to 6 years and 4 months imprisonment, and Siddiqi to 3 years and 7 months imprisonment, along with ancillary orders.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample in response to a lawful approved screening device demand contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

Following a motor vehicle accident on January 17, 2017, the accused claimed he was unable to provide a breath sample due to debilitating sciatica pain.

The Crown argued the mens rea for the offence was mere knowledge or awareness of the prohibited act.

The court adopted the more demanding test from R. v. Stanley, requiring the Crown to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure was deliberate and intentional.

The court found credibility issues with the accused's testimony but determined that, considering all evidence, a reasonable doubt existed as to whether the failure was deliberate or due to inability caused by pain.

The accused was acquitted.

Four defendants—two individuals and two corporations—were convicted of multiple offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 for failing to provide proper direct agreements, engaging in unfair practices through false representations, and failing to provide refunds to consumers.

The prosecution sought custodial sentences for the individuals and substantial fines for the corporations.

The court rejected custodial sentences, finding that while the conduct was blameworthy, it did not rise to the level of intentional fraud seen in comparable cases where contractors absconded with deposits or provided no work.

Instead, the court imposed significant fines, probation with restitution conditions, and additional restrictions on the primary offender.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The trial focused on whether breath testing results should be excluded due to alleged Charter violations.

The accused was stopped for traffic violations and subsequently subjected to an approved screening device test and breath samples at the police station.

The central issue was whether the police failed to inform the accused of the reason for his continued detention and his right to counsel in a timely manner.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug following a minor property damage accident.

Police observed signs of impairment and conducted a Drug Recognition Evaluation, which indicated the presence of Lorazepam and an inactive cannabinoid metabolite in the accused's urine.

The Crown sought to prove impairment by drug beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while there was evidence of impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the impairment was caused by the drugs found in the accused's system, as urine testing cannot reliably determine the timing or concentration of drug ingestion or its effects at the time of driving.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit.

The Crown relied on breath test readings and a toxicologist's report calculating the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of operation.

The defence presented evidence focused on bolus drinking, establishing that the accused consumed a large quantity of alcohol shortly before driving, within approximately 15 minutes of the stop.

The Crown failed to prove the foundational assumption in the toxicologist's report that there was no consumption of large quantities of alcohol within 15 minutes prior to the incident.

The court found insufficient evidence to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed both counts.

The accused was charged with threatening to kill the complainant on December 14, 2012.

The trial took place in Toronto's Integrated Domestic Violence Court.

The complainant and accused had a former romantic relationship and were engaged in a contentious family court proceeding regarding custody and access to their child.

The complainant alleged that the accused threatened to kill her, that she would explode like a balloon, that he would break her, and that he sent a threatening email.

The court found the complainant's credibility was substantially damaged by her prior false affidavit recanting allegations of assault, the suspicious timing of her allegations coinciding with an unfavorable custody recommendation, and her demonstrated determination to obtain sole custody.

The court found the accused not guilty, holding that the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon contrary to s. 267(a) of the Criminal Code for allegedly throwing a block of hard cheese at his wife during a domestic dispute, causing bruising.

The complainant testified she felt a blow to her side while cooking and saw the cheese on the floor.

The accused claimed his wife fell backward into the island counter and the cheese fell to the floor.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and internally consistent, while the accused's account was illogical, internally contradictory, and inconsistent with the physical evidence.

The court rejected the defence assertion that the complainant fabricated the complaint for marital advantage.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault of a co-worker on October 28, 2010.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual contact including kissing, breast contact, and masturbation.

The defendant claimed the complainant consented to all sexual activity.

The central legal issue was whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent was available and, if so, whether the Crown had refuted it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the defendant's conduct was troubling and his belief in a relationship was self-delusional, the complainant's physical actions—moving her arms aside and performing masturbation—created an air of reality to the defence.

The court concluded the defendant took reasonable steps to ascertain consent by seeking permission for each sexual act and accepting refusals.

The charge was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to admit videotaped statements made by two defendants following their arrest for firearms offences.

The defendants argued the statements were involuntary because the interviewing officer failed to inform them they would also be charged with being occupants of a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm.

One defendant also alleged he was assaulted by an officer and that the interviewing officer used inducements and trickery.

The court found that the defendants generally understood the serious jeopardy they faced regarding the firearms investigation, and that the failure to specify the occupant charge did not invalidate their waiver of rights.

The court also rejected the allegations of inducements, oppressive trickery, and the impact of the alleged assault, ruling the statements voluntary and admissible.

In a criminal trial for sexual assault, sexual interference, and possession of child pornography, the court assessed child-witness credibility, prior consistent disclosures, forensic findings, and computer-forensic evidence.

The defence argued fabrication, suggestive questioning, and inconsistencies concerning timing, emotional presentation, and device access.

The court found the child witness credible and reliable, accepted corroborative evidence including semen detection and pornography recovered from household computers, and rejected the theory that allegations were engineered by family members.

The court also rejected the accused’s explanations about file downloads and deletions and drew adverse conclusions from attempts to remove files after disclosure.

The accused was convicted on all counts beyond a reasonable doubt.