Peter Robson Hamm

The applicant was charged with aggravated assault, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a licence, possession of a firearm while prohibited, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of cocaine and crack cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging that correctional officers at Toronto South Detention Centre breached his rights under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter by subjecting him to degrading strip search and forced toilet procedures.

The court found Charter breaches but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, finding alternative remedies adequate.

On the trial proper, the applicant was found guilty of all charges, including aggravated assault, based on DNA evidence linking his knife to the victim's blood and circumstantial evidence establishing his presence and motive.

The court found Dylan Sherief not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for the second-degree murder of Nicola Maiorano.

The decision reviews the legal test for criminal responsibility, the psychiatric evidence, and the facts of the case, concluding that Mr. Sherief’s schizoaffective disorder rendered him incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the offence.

The court ordered that Mr. Sherief be remanded to the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

The applicant, John Geddes, brought a Charter application under ss. 7, 8, and 9, seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence (knife, firearm, drugs) seized upon his arrest.

He argued police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the search was illegal, and excessive force was used.

The court dismissed the application, finding that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest based on DVR footage and victim information, the search incident to arrest was lawful and reasonable for safety and evidence discovery, and the force used was reasonable, proportionate, and necessary given the applicant's resistance and the dynamic circumstances.

Joseph Marcel Kovacs was found guilty by a jury of three counts of assault, one count of assault with a weapon, and one count of forcible confinement, all involving intimate partner violence against his former partner over four years.

The Crown sought a two-year jail sentence, while the defence sought a two-year conditional sentence.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years less five days imprisonment, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation due to the gravity of the offences, the offender's criminal record, and the need to protect the public.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate given the circumstances.

The accused, an Indigenous man, pleaded guilty to break and enter, robbery, and disguise with intent, committed while serving a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including victim impact and a lengthy criminal record, but extensively applied Gladue principles.

The decision highlighted the accused's traumatic background, systemic failures, and the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in the justice system.

Despite the Crown seeking a 5-year sentence, the judge imposed a 3-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing rehabilitation over general deterrence and denunciation, and strongly recommending an Indigenous healing lodge.

M.K. brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) right to a trial without unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 858 days (28 months and 7 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice established in R. v. Jordan.

The court deducted 224 days for the COVID-19 pandemic (an exceptional circumstance) and 50 days for defence-caused delay (due to lack of diligence in filing a trial scheduling form).

The net delay remained 19 months and 1 week (578 days), which was presumptively unreasonable.

The Crown failed to rebut this presumption, with the court noting a lack of institutional resources and flexibility as a prominent cause of delay.

Consequently, a stay of proceedings was granted.

The accused, K.L., brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter for unreasonable delay in a sexual assault and exploitation case.

The total delay was 20 months and 13 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued the delay was an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the case's complexity (novel defence argument, s. 276 application).

The court found the Crown failed to demonstrate reasonable steps to mitigate the nine-month delay in providing initial disclosure.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments regarding complexity and the pandemic as a blanket excuse, concluding the delay was unreasonable and staying the charges against the accused.

The appellant appealed his second-degree murder conviction for the shooting death of his common-law partner and the 15-year parole ineligibility portion of his sentence.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred by preventing cross-examination regarding a polygraph test administered to a key Crown witness and by admitting expert testimony from a bloodstain analyst.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the conviction and sentence appeals, finding no error in the trial judge's rulings and upholding the sentencing decision despite a jury recommendation for 10 years of parole ineligibility.

The appellants were convicted of two counts of breaching a regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act.

At trial, they were sentenced to fines of $5,000 each and a two-year probation order requiring reconstruction of a seawall.

The Conservation Authority appealed to the Provincial Offences Appeal Court, seeking removal of a home addition as a sentencing term.

The POAC judge allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, remitted the fines, and ordered removal of the addition.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, arguing the POAC judge exceeded the scope of appellate review by reversing factual findings without identifying palpable and overriding error.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the POAC judge impermissibly substituted his own findings regarding whether the conduct constituted a flagrant and deliberate breach of the regulations.

The appellant was convicted of perjury for giving evasive and deliberately misleading testimony at another trial.

While the appellant was never directly asked whether he associated the nickname "Carlito" with Pierre Aragon, the trial judge found that the appellant deliberately refrained from identifying Aragon by that nickname despite knowing the questions were directed at soliciting that information.

The appellant's inadvertent reference to Aragon as "Carlito" and subsequent attempt to cover up the mistake further demonstrated deliberate intent to mislead.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge's findings were open to her on the evidence and that the Crown had established all requisite elements of perjury.

Accused charged with trading in securities without registration, issuing securities without filing prospectus, and representing that securities would be listed on exchange with intention of effecting trade.

Accused developed website for company (Asia Global/Asia Power) which stated company would be listed on exchange in future.

Website made clear company was not currently listed and no shares available for purchase.

Unregistered sales representatives defrauded private investors by selling non-existent shares.

Evidence did not establish connection between accused and sales representatives or investors, or that website was created to induce share purchases.

Creation of website not constituting act in furtherance of trade.

Accused not trading in or issuing security and not making representation with intention of effecting trade.

All charges dismissed.

Two accused were charged with sexual assault, administering a stupefying or noxious substance to facilitate sexual assault, and being parties to each other’s alleged sexual assault.

The complainant reported memory loss and later flashbacks alleging anal sexual assaults after a night of drinking and attending the accused’s condominium.

The court found significant reliability issues with the complainant’s evidence, including inconsistent recollections, delayed “flashback” memories, and refusal to acknowledge possible memory error.

Forensic and circumstantial evidence did not establish the administration of a drug or non-consensual sexual activity beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove lack of consent or the involvement of both accused in the alleged assaults.