P. Campbell

This decision addresses the constitutionality of routine strip searches of young persons in pre-trial custody, focusing on four Black adolescent female applicants charged in the high-profile homicide of Kenneth Lee.

The court found that routine strip searches, conducted without individualized grounds or prior authorization and involving complete nudity, violated sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead holding that the appropriate remedy was a reduction in sentence for any applicant found guilty, to reflect the Charter breach.

The ruling provides detailed analysis of the legal and regulatory framework, the psychological impact of strip searches, and the evolving standards for custodial searches in youth justice settings.

The accused was tried before a judge alone on two counts of first degree murder and one count of attempted murder arising from three closely timed shootings in northwest Toronto.

The Crown’s case depended primarily on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to a specific SIM card and phone number through cell site records, surveillance images, post-offence travel under a false identity, and attendance at a funeral of a known participant.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard, the D.W. framework, and Villaroman, the court held that the user of the relevant phone was one of the shooters and that the accused was that user.

The court further held that transferred intent under s. 229(b) supported liability for the death of an accomplice accidentally shot during the planned and deliberate murder of the intended victim.

Guilty verdicts were entered on all three counts.

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 Crown applied for an order to produce the complainant's private medical and cell phone records to the defence prior to a trial for human trafficking offences.

The complainant was uncooperative and opposed the use of her records.

The court adjourned the application, ruling that the complainant must first be fully informed of her statutory rights to attend, participate, and obtain funded counsel before the common law O'Connor procedure could be applied.

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of robbery, extortion, sexual assault, and threatening death.

The accused had stolen the complainant's phone and used it to coerce her into performing sexual acts, before subsequently forcing vaginal intercourse upon her.

The defence argued that the rule against multiple convictions (the Kienapple principle) should apply to stay either the extortion or sexual assault conviction.

The court held that the Kienapple principle did not apply, finding that the extortion and the subsequent forced intercourse lacked a sufficient factual and legal nexus, as the intercourse was a departure from the coerced agreement and constituted a distinct delict.

Convictions were entered on both counts.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with dangerous driving causing death after his vehicle struck multiple objects and a bus, killing his passenger.

The defence argued that the accused was experiencing a seizure at the time of the collision, rendering his actions involuntary and negating the requisite mens rea.

The Crown contended that the accused was conscious and driving recklessly, or alternatively, that his decision to drive despite a history of possible seizures constituted a marked departure from the standard of care.

The court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was experiencing a seizure during the erratic driving.

Furthermore, the court held that the accused's decision to drive was not a marked departure from the standard of care, as he had previously been advised by a neurologist that he could continue driving.

The accused was acquitted.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and criminal harassment against his former intimate partner.

He was given a suspended sentence and 18 months of probation.

He appealed, seeking a conditional discharge and a reduction of the probation term to 12 months, which was the Crown's position at trial.

The Superior Court of Justice upheld the suspended sentence, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the proportionality principle.

However, the court reduced the probation term to 12 months, holding that the trial judge erred by imposing a longer term than the Crown requested without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to make submissions.

During a jury trial for sexual assault, the Crown requested a mid-trial instruction adapting the R. v. D.D. principles on delayed disclosure to address the complainant's incremental disclosure of vaginal penetration.

The defence opposed, arguing their challenge to credibility was based on specific cross-examination rather than a reflexive equation of delay with dishonesty.

The court declined to give the mid-trial instruction, finding it unnecessary and potentially prejudicial at this stage.

The court held that the jury already had a well-developed body of evidence and that the D.D. principles would be better communicated in the context of the final jury charge.

In a historical sexual assault prosecution, the court applied the W.(D.) framework to competing testimony from the complainant and the defendant.

The complainant's account was plausible and personally convincing, but material additions and inconsistencies across her prior statements and trial evidence raised reliability concerns.

The defendant's evidence consisted largely of firm denials and an unpersuasive speculative motive theory, but it could not be rejected as self-serving deception.

The court was left unsure what, if anything, occurred and held that the Crown had not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with sexual assault with a weapon, assault, forcible confinement, and choking, arising from an incident at his apartment involving his former partner.

The Crown relied heavily on text messages sent between the parties after the incident, arguing the accused's failure to deny the complainant's accusations constituted adoptive admissions by silence.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, corroborated by the text messages and photographs of her injuries and torn clothing.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault with a weapon, assault, forcible confinement, and choking.

The accused was tried on historical sexual offence allegations said to have occurred when the complainant was a child and later a teenager.

The court found the complainant honest and the accused generally unimpressive, but held that sincerity did not resolve serious reliability concerns arising from the complainant's evidence about memory formation, suppression, flashbacks, and therapeutic recall.

Applying the criminal burden of proof and the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that the decisive details necessary for conviction were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all three counts of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault.

The offender was convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm and a high-capacity magazine.

The firearm was used by a companion in a dangerous public shooting, though the offender was acquitted of attempted murder.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the offender's background, and the impact of systemic racism on his moral blameworthiness.

A global sentence of 5 years was imposed, reduced to 2 years and 4 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and lockdown credits.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a drive-by shooting.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the firearm used and the getaway vehicle.

The court found that while the accused was involved as the driver of the vehicle, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite mens rea for party liability to attempted murder, as there was insufficient evidence he knew the shooter intended to kill the victim.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of the firearms offences.

The defendant, charged with multiple massage parlour robberies, applied to exclude evidence seized from his rented truck and room, alleging violations of his Charter rights.

The court found that while the initial search of the truck incident to arrest was lawful, the police seriously violated the defendant's s. 10(b) rights by delaying access to counsel and improperly questioning him about his address.

This unconstitutionally obtained information led to a warrantless entry into his room, violating s. 8, and the subsequent seizure of a distinctive leather jacket.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the jacket and evidence obtained from a later warrant search of the truck, but admitted the knife and phones found during the initial lawful search.