P. Fry

At a preliminary inquiry into a shooting at the Pickering Ribfest on June 2, 2018, the court determined the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically police statements from three key witnesses who claimed memory loss at trial.

The Crown sought to introduce statements from Shamar John, Zachery Hamedi, and Vaughan Roberts under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that the twin criteria of necessity and threshold reliability were satisfied for all three witnesses' statements.

The court also addressed the admissibility of a Snapchat video and the identification of the accused by the accused's brother.

The court committed the accused to stand trial on multiple charges related to the shooting.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay, alleging a breach of his section 11(b) Charter rights.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 40 months and one week.

The court attributed only two weeks of this delay to the defence, resulting in a net delay of 39 months and 3 weeks, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption by demonstrating exceptional circumstances, as the court found that neither lengthy defence cross-examination nor an unsuccessful certiorari application constituted defence delay or exceptional circumstances, particularly given the Crown's own disclosure issues and the simplicity of the case.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The accused was charged with two counts of uttering threats to cause death contrary to s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from statements made during a telephone conversation on a train, overheard by a fellow passenger.

The accused allegedly threatened to kill ten female members of Parliament and the spouse of the current Prime Minister.

The court found that while the accused spoke the words in question, they did not constitute threats within the meaning of the statute when considered in full context.

The court held that a reasonable person, fully apprised of all circumstances including the accused's apparent belief that he held a legitimate law enforcement role, would be left in reasonable doubt as to whether the words were actual threats or the ramblings of a mentally unstable individual.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

A young person charged with robbery with a firearm, point firearm, assault with a weapon, disguise with intent, and conspiracy to commit robbery brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant alleged that Toronto Police Service Hold-up Squad officers used excessive force by beating him while he was detained in an interview room at 41 Division.

The applicant also alleged breaches of his rights under sections 7, 10(a), 10(b), and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that he was assaulted in the manner alleged.

The court rejected the applicant's evidence as unreliable and found that the injuries observed were inconsistent with the alleged brutal assault.

The court concluded that the officers' actions were justified and proportional to the applicant's aggressive behaviour.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.