Paul T. O'Marra

The defendant brought a section 8 Charter application challenging the police seizure of his vehicle's Event Data Recorder (EDR) without prior judicial authorization or consent following a serious motor vehicle collision.

The Crown alleged dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm based on speed data extracted from the EDR.

The court found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the EDR and its contents, and that the warrantless seizure and extraction of the data constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the police acted in bad faith by deliberately ignoring established Ontario jurisprudence requiring either a search warrant or owner consent before accessing an EDR.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg/100 ml) following a traffic stop for dangerous driving.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter violations including arbitrary detention, failure to provide timely rights to counsel, and failure to comply with the "forthwith" requirement for the approved screening device demand.

The court found minor breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the evidence, finding that the breaches were inadvertent, the impact on Charter-protected interests was minimal, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The applicant sought to establish standing to challenge the admissibility of a loaded handgun, ammunition, and drugs seized from a wooden fence during execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The applicant argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fence and its contents.

The Crown contended there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a shared fence accessible from the neighbor's property.

The court found that the applicant established standing by demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fence, albeit at the lower end of the spectrum, as the fence was part of the curtilage of the residence and the items were not abandoned.

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings for violation of section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to delay.

The total delay from the laying of the information on August 28, 2018 to the scheduled end of trial on May 15, 2020 was 20 months and 17 days, exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months under the Jordan framework.

The Crown argued that a 93-day delay between two judicial pre-trial dates should be characterized as a discrete event beyond its control due to technological issues from a Microsoft Office 365 software update.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the assigned Crown Attorney's failure to attend was due to forgetfulness rather than an exceptional circumstance.

The court also found significant delays in disclosure, particularly the 7.5-month delay in providing the Information to Obtain the search warrant and missing officers' notes.

The court concluded that no exceptional circumstances justified the delay and granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with two offences: breach of probation by contacting the complainant contrary to a no-contact condition, and distributing an intimate video recording without consent contrary to section 162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused admitted to sending Facebook messages in breach of the probation order and was found guilty on that count.

On the second count, the Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to establish that the accused uploaded an intimate video to Pornhub.

The court found the complainant credible and the accused's testimony unsatisfactory.

Based on the timing of the accused's release from custody, his hostile Facebook messages, his motive for revenge, and the absence of any realistic alternative explanation, the court found the accused guilty of distributing the intimate image without consent.

The accused was charged with robbery with a knife of an iPhone from the complainant on March 21, 2018.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification evidence, specifically the complainant's yearbook identification and claimed recognition of the accused from prior sightings at a plaza.

The accused denied involvement and testified he was in Toronto with his girlfriend at the time.

The court found multiple frailties in the identification evidence, including significant discrepancies in height estimation, inconsistencies regarding accents and facial coverings, and the unreliability of the recognition evidence based on brief, distant observations.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

A young person pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The offence involved a coordinated robbery of a marijuana dispensary where the victim was shot in the leg.

The court considered sentencing principles under the YCJA, including the requirement to consider alternatives to custody.

Despite the serious nature of the offence and the Crown's request for 12-15 months custody, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of two years probation with strict conditions, crediting the young person's 171 days of pre-trial custody as equivalent to over 8.5 months.

The decision emphasized rehabilitation, the young person's positive institutional conduct, supportive family circumstances, and concerns regarding the overrepresentation of young Black people in custody.

Two young persons were convicted of robbery simpliciter following a trial.

They were among a group that forcefully entered a hotel room in Oakville and robbed an escort of her personal belongings.

The young persons' culpability was grounded in party liability.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of three to six months followed by probation, while defence counsel sought probation with conditions.

The court found the offence constituted a violent offence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act due to psychological bodily harm to the victim and the home invasion nature of the crime.

However, considering the young persons' lack of prior records, their conduct while on bail, educational achievements, supportive family circumstances, and the mitigating factor of adult influence, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of two years' probation with conditions including community service.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of his parked car in a plaza parking lot at 3:31 am.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The defence argued the presumption did not apply because the accused's body was slumped across the front seats, and alternatively, that the presumption was rebutted by evidence of a concrete plan to stay at a friend's residence.

The court found the presumption applied but was rebutted on the balance of probabilities regarding initial intent.

However, the court found the accused presented a realistic risk of danger to the public given his intoxication, possession of car keys, and lack of a reliable alternative plan.

The accused was convicted.

Three young persons were charged with robbery with a firearm, use of an imitation firearm during robbery, and related offences arising from a September 28, 2017 armed robbery of an escort at the Holiday Inn in Oakville.

The Crown's case relied heavily on eyewitness testimony from the victim, corroborating evidence from an adult co-accused, hotel security video surveillance, cellular phone records and extraction reports, and a hearsay statement from a hotel guest.

The defence challenged the identification of the accused and the reliability of the Crown's witnesses.

The court found that the Crown established identity beyond a reasonable doubt through a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence, including credible eyewitness testimony, forensic cellular analysis, and video surveillance.

However, the court found reasonable doubt as to whether an actual firearm or an imitation firearm was used.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit ("over 80").

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the breath demand and breath samples under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure.

The defendant also challenged the Crown's reliance on the presumption of accuracy under the transitional provisions of Bill C-46.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable suspicion based on the strong odour of alcohol on the defendant's breath, satisfying the threshold for an approved screening device demand.

The court rejected the Charter application and found that the Crown could rely on the presumption of accuracy, adopting the reasoning from R. v. Does and R. v. Porchetta over R. v. Flores-Vigil.

The defendant was convicted.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two accused on charges of trafficking in methamphetamine and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The court applied the test for committal in circumstantial evidence cases, examining whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably draw the necessary inferences to establish the essential elements of the offences.

The court found insufficient evidence to support the inferences required for conviction.

Specifically, the court found that a reasonable jury could not infer a hand-to-hand drug transaction occurred, could not establish that both accused occupied the residence where drugs were found, and could not infer knowledge and control over the drugs.

Both accused were discharged on all counts.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, uttering threats to burn property, and criminal harassment against his former romantic partner.

The court applied the W.D. test to assess credibility, finding the accused's testimony unbelievable and the complainant generally credible.

The charge of uttering a death threat in a hotel room was dismissed due to reasonable doubt arising from the complainant's intoxication.

However, the court found the accused guilty of threatening to blow up the complainant's house and criminal harassment, based on a series of intimidating text messages and a photograph of firearms sent to the complainant.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting and sexually exploiting his girlfriend's two young daughters over a three-year period.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence based on the offender's lack of a criminal record and positive background.

The court found that a conditional sentence would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the breach of trust and the profound impact on the victims.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day incarceration, consistent with the sentence imposed at the original trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and attempting to obstruct justice against his former intimate partner.

While on probation for a similar offence against a different victim, the accused repeatedly contacted the complainant, sending hundreds of texts and calls.

He later attempted to have the complainant sign a recantation letter to have the charges withdrawn, threatening to expose details of their relationship if she refused.

The court emphasized denunciation and specific deterrence given the accused's history of similar offences and breaches of court orders.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 10 months' incarceration (162 days remaining after pre-sentence credit) and 18 months' probation.

The youthful offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crossing the center line and striking an oncoming vehicle head-on, causing significant injuries to two elderly passengers.

The Crown sought six to nine months of incarceration, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of prolonged dangerous driving and severe victim impact against the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, lack of prior record, and the offender's mental health struggles.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence and a four-year driving prohibition.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested for impaired driving.

At trial, the accused argued that his Charter rights under ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated, seeking exclusion of the breath test results under s. 24(2).

The court found no breach of ss. 8 or 10(a), but concluded that a 7-minute delay in providing rights to counsel violated s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the breach minimal and the evidence reliable.

The court found the accused guilty of both impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol, entering a conviction on the impaired driving count and a judicial stay on the excess blood alcohol count.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The court conducted a blended voir dire to determine whether the accused's Charter rights were violated and whether evidence should be excluded.

The court found a breach of the accused's section 10(b) right to counsel of choice when police failed to wait a reasonable period for the accused's preferred counsel to return a call before offering duty counsel.

However, the court found the accused was in care and control of the vehicle and was impaired by alcohol.

The breath sample evidence was excluded due to the Charter violation, resulting in dismissal of the "over 80" charge but conviction on the impaired driving charge.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography and access to child pornography contrary to sections 163.1(4) and 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

Police found 32 unique video clips and 69 unique pictures of child pornography on the accused's computer depicting children aged 6-14 engaged in sexual abuse.

The Crown sought 8 months imprisonment plus 2 years probation.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or alternatively 4-6 months imprisonment.

The court imposed 6 months imprisonment (after crediting pre-trial custody and bail time) followed by 2 years probation, a 10-year section 161 order, DNA order, lifetime SOIRA registration, and forfeiture of computer equipment.

The court rejected a conditional sentence as inconsistent with denunciation and deterrence principles applicable to child pornography offences.

The accused was charged with robbery and unauthorized use of a stolen credit card arising from a home invasion.

Following a voir dire on the admissibility of a video-recorded statement, the court found the statement was involuntary and excluded it from evidence.

The court also found a breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights due to police denigration of defence counsel's advice.

The court applied the Grant test and determined that exclusion of the statement was necessary to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system.