Peter Brauti

The Crown appealed a summary conviction acquittal for sexual assault.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty after concluding that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the physical contact.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred by partitioning the complainant's evidence, treating her as a discreditable witness requiring corroboration, and failing to consider the accused's evidence on consent.

The appellate court dismissed the Crown's appeal, finding no legal error in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, his consideration of the absence of corroborative evidence, or his ultimate verdict.

The court sentenced Calvin Au, a Toronto Police Service officer, for assaulting Chadd Facey after a failed transaction involving a fake watch.

The court found Au used excessive force in taking Facey to the ground, though not in his capacity as a police officer.

The sentence imposed was a suspended sentence and 12 months probation, with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The decision discusses the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact on the victim’s family and community, and the heightened standards for police officers convicted of assault.

This decision concerns a sexual assault charge against Shou Ma arising from an incident at a professional reception.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility of the complainant, an independent witness, and the accused.

Despite some corroboration from an independent witness, the judge found significant inconsistencies and credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding the number of alleged incidents and her state of intoxication.

The accused denied intentional touching, and the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally grabbed the complainant’s buttocks or that there was a lack of consent.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, a trucking dispatcher, was found guilty of importing 50 kilograms of cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine.

The Crown sought 13 to 15 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 9 to 12 years.

The court considered the significant quantity of cocaine, the accused's role in directing an unknowing driver, and his lack of a criminal record.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 years for importing and 9 years for conspiracy, to be served concurrently, less 104 days of pre-sentence and Downes credit, resulting in a net sentence of 11 years and 261 days.

The accused, a head dispatcher for a trucking company, was charged with importing cocaine and conspiracy to import cocaine after 50 bricks of cocaine were found hidden in a shipment of plastic resin at the Canadian border.

The accused denied knowledge of the conspiracy, claiming he was unaware the shipment had been diverted to avoid a police search in Texas and that a co-worker had arranged the falsified customs documents.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible, finding that his actions—including maintaining a cover story, rerouting the shipment, and sending falsified documents—provided overwhelming circumstantial evidence of his knowledge and participation.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant, L.R., faced two charges of sexual assault.

The first count involved sexual intercourse where the complainant alleged intoxication and lack of consent, while the defendant asserted consent.

The second count involved an alleged attempt to force oral sex.

The court analyzed the complainant's capacity to consent, considering her alcohol tolerance, a pre-existing sleep disorder, and video evidence.

The court found the complainant had the capacity to consent and did, in fact, consent to the sexual activity in the first count.

The court also found the second allegation highly improbable.

Consequently, both charges were dismissed.

A Toronto Police officer, Christopher Hutchings, was charged with assault following an incident on a TTC bus involving a "disorderly male," Chase Richards.

The court assessed whether Officer Hutchings had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and if his use of force was reasonable, proportionate, and necessary.

The judgment relied on video evidence, expert testimony on police use of force, and witness credibility.

The court found that Officer Hutchings had objectively and subjectively reasonable grounds to arrest Mr. Richards for mischief due to his non-compliance and aggressive behaviour, which caused the bus to go out of service.

The court rejected Mr. Richards' claim of being choked, finding his actions on video inconsistent with such an event.

While acknowledging the social context of racial profiling, the court found no evidence that race influenced the officer's actions.

Officer Hutchings was found not guilty.

Sean Osborne, a police officer, pleaded guilty to assault committed while on duty.

The assault involved stepping on a restrained young person's head/neck area and twice kicking him in the chest after arrest.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, while the Defence sought a discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting that police officers are held to a higher standard due to their position of trust.

Despite significant mitigating factors, including PTSD and extensive community contributions, the court found that a discharge would be contrary to public interest.

A conviction was deemed necessary to convey the seriousness of the offence and breach of public trust.

The court imposed a suspended sentence and 12 months probation with statutory terms.

The Crown sought to introduce historical text messages sent by the accused to his wife, which were obtained by police pursuant to a valid general warrant.

The accused sought to exclude the messages on the basis of spousal privilege under s. 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act and s. 189(6) of the Criminal Code.

The court dismissed the application, holding that spousal privilege is a testimonial privilege that protects a spouse from being compelled to testify, but does not render the communications themselves inadmissible when independently and lawfully obtained by police.

The accused, Carleton Watson, was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The trial involved conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused, with the complainant alleging sexual assault and the accused denying any sexual activity.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, noting inconsistencies and fabrications in the complainant's testimony regarding the accused's gun, visits to her new home, and presence at her workplace.

Despite concerns about the accused's criminal record for dishonesty and some aspects of his testimony, the court found that the Crown had not proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The appellant was convicted of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after his motorcycle collided with a southbound SUV at an intersection in Toronto, resulting in serious injuries to a pedestrian.

The trial judge sentenced him to 12 months in custody followed by two years' probation, with a five-year prohibition on driving motorcycles.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence, arguing the verdict was unreasonable and that expert evidence was inadmissible.

The Crown cross-appealed the sentence, contending the driving prohibition could not be limited to motorcycles and that the driving lessons requirement was improper.

The appellate court dismissed the conviction appeal, dismissed the appellant's sentence appeal with modifications, and allowed the Crown's sentence appeal.

A Toronto Police Service officer pleaded guilty to obstructing justice by destroying or converting evidence to his own use.

During the execution of a search warrant at a marijuana dispensary, the officer stole three cannabis-infused chocolate bars that had been overlooked during the search.

He later consumed one of the bars while on duty and armed with a firearm, resulting in severe intoxication.

His impaired state led him to make a false officer-in-need-of-assistance call, which caused responding officers to rush to the scene.

One officer was seriously injured in the response.

The evidence tampering resulted in the withdrawal of criminal charges against seven persons.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite the officer's otherwise exemplary 13-year career, finding that a conviction and conditional sentence of imprisonment was necessary to protect the rule of law and denounce the egregious breach of public trust.

Two young persons charged with street racing causing death, street racing causing bodily harm, dangerous driving causing death, and dangerous driving causing bodily harm brought applications under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging unreasonable delay in trial.

The charges arose from a fatal motor vehicle collision on April 14, 2014.

The information was sworn on May 13, 2014, with trial anticipated to conclude on October 5, 2016, representing a total delay of 28.75 months.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which created presumptive ceilings of 18 months for provincial courts.

The court found that while the delay exceeded the presumptive ceiling, it was justified by exceptional circumstances, including an unforeseen adjournment request by co-accused's counsel and the transitional nature of the case.

The court also considered the case under the pre-Jordan Morin framework and found the delay was not unreasonable in that context either.

The applicant, a police officer, was convicted of attempted murder after shooting a person on a streetcar.

He brought a constitutional challenge against the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for attempted murder with a restricted firearm under s. 239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the high moral blameworthiness of the applicant's conduct, nor was it overbroad in its application to police officers.

This case concerns the sentencing of Police Constable James Forcillo for attempted murder.

The court first addressed a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum punishment of five years for attempted murder under s.239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, finding it did not infringe ss.12 or 7 of the Charter.

The sentencing judge then determined the appropriate sentence, rejecting the defence's submission that Forcillo's moral blameworthiness was low due to a misperception.

The court found that Forcillo acted contrary to his training by shooting a potential threat and failing to use de-escalation, constituting a high level of moral blameworthiness and an egregious breach of trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as positive personal characteristics and the impact of protective custody, the aggravating factors, including the abuse of authority and the serious actual harm caused, substantially outweighed them.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence.

A sentence of six years in the penitentiary was imposed.

The accused were involved in a large-scale marijuana trafficking operation.

Following guilty findings based on Agreed Statements of Fact, the court proceeded to sentencing.

The primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation were emphasized, particularly given the commercial nature and significant profits involved.

The court rejected arguments to delay sentencing based on anticipated changes to marijuana laws, affirming the rule of law.

State misconduct in the investigation, while acknowledged, was deemed to have negligible impact on sentencing.

Credit was given for onerous bail conditions and the efficient conduct of the trial through Agreed Statements of Fact.

Conditional sentences were deemed inappropriate, with penitentiary sentences warranted for all accused.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault arising from a domestic dispute where he was found to have pushed a garbage bag into his wife's face.

The trial judge had acquitted the appellant of more serious assault allegations from the same incident due to credibility concerns but convicted him on the garbage bag incident.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to adequately explain why he could be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on one part of the incident but not the other, and expressed concern over the trial judge's application of the standard of proof.

The conviction was set aside and, given the circumstances and time passed, no new trial was ordered.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the total delay of 17.5 months, when reduced to account for neutral intake and institutional delay, resulted in 12.5 months of attributable delay—exceeding the Morin guidelines by 2.5 months.

The Crown was responsible for 3.5 months of unreasonable delay in providing essential disclosure, particularly the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the search warrant.

The court found that the accused suffered both inherent prejudice and real prejudice, including disruption to family court proceedings regarding custody and access to his children.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The Crown applied for certiorari seeking to quash a preliminary inquiry judge’s decision discharging a police officer from charges of second-degree murder and manslaughter arising from the fatal shooting of a suspect during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown conceded the murder charge but argued the officer should have been committed to trial for manslaughter based on careless use of a firearm, advancing two theories: that the officer released the firearm onto a sling while grappling with the deceased, or that he had his finger on the trigger and unintentionally fired.

The Superior Court held the preliminary inquiry judge applied the correct committal test and did not commit jurisdictional error.

The evidence showed the officer’s conduct complied with training and police policy, and the proposed inferences of careless firearm use were unsupported and speculative.

Certiorari was therefore unavailable.

The accused police officer was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon arising from injuries sustained by an individual during a G20 demonstration at Queen’s Park.

The Crown alleged the officer struck the individual with a shield and baton or used excessive force while moving him.

The court considered three theories of liability based on eyewitness testimony and video evidence.

The judge found significant reliability and credibility issues with the key identification witness and concluded the video evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused struck the individual or used excessive force.

The Crown failed to establish any theory of liability beyond a reasonable doubt.