Pharah Arileena Bacchus

The accused brought Charter motions (ss. 7, 10(a), 10(b)) to exclude drug and money evidence in a trial for possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court found no s. 7 violation regarding police body-worn camera (BWC) muting or late activation, as no evidence was "lost" and no prejudice was demonstrated.

However, the court found s. 10(a) and 10(b) violations due to delayed and incomplete advisement of rights upon detention and arrest.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant analysis, the court determined that the evidence should not be excluded, weighing the seriousness of the breaches (moderate, good faith, fluid situation) against the minimal impact on the accused's Charter interests (no incriminating statements, evidence discoverable) and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious drug offences on their merits.

The motions to exclude evidence were dismissed, and the accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender following his conviction for assault with a weapon.

The offender had a 30-year criminal record involving 16 violent offences, largely driven by intractable substance abuse.

The court considered psychiatric evidence indicating a high likelihood of violent recidivism and rejected arguments that a determinate sentence with a long-term supervision order would adequately protect the public.

Despite considering the impact of systemic anti-Black racism on the offender's life, the court found the risk of future violence unmanageable in the community.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration.

The accused, a 23-year-old Black man, was found guilty of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm with an over-capacity magazine.

He fled from police and discarded the firearm in a schoolyard.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying the principles from R. v. Morris, the court considered an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report detailing the impact of systemic anti-Black racism, educational disadvantages, and exposure to gun violence on the accused.

Balancing denunciation and deterrence with the accused's young age, lack of prior record, and good prospects for rehabilitation, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police observed him pull a handgun from his satchel during a takedown.

The accused fled through a schoolyard and was arrested shortly after without the firearm.

A loaded handgun was found the next morning in the schoolyard along the accused's flight path.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found that the circumstantial evidence, combined with the officers' observations, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed and discarded the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon following an altercation at a homeless shelter.

Video surveillance captured the accused swiping at the complainant's neck with a knife, after which the complainant beat the accused.

The accused claimed he was holding a crack pipe and raised self-defence.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, found no air of reality to the self-defence claim, and convicted the accused based on the clear video evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to being unlawfully in a dwelling on April 18, 2020, break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence on April 19, 2020, and failure to comply with a probation order.

The central issue was the calculation of enhanced presentence custody credit, particularly regarding lockdown conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre and COVID-19 pandemic impacts.

The court imposed an 18-month global sentence with enhanced presentence custody credit totalling 18 months, resulting in immediate release on probation.

The judgment addresses systemic failures in the detention centre's provision of personal protective equipment to vulnerable detainees.

A youth was charged with sexual assault following an alleged incident in a park.

The complainant testified that the accused sexually assaulted her against her will.

The accused testified that he and the complainant briefly conversed at the park entrance and then he left alone.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding details of the alleged assault and her post-incident disclosures to police.

The accused's testimony contained one significant credibility issue regarding his stated intentions upon leaving the bus stop.

After weighing the evidence, the court determined it was left with a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused committed the alleged sexual assault and acquitted the accused.

The applicants, Rupert Folkard and Joseph Goldfinger, jointly charged with fraud over $5000, sought a Rowbotham Order for state-funded legal counsel after being refused Legal Aid.

The court applied the three-part test for a Rowbotham Order, finding that while the applicants were indigent despite exceeding Legal Aid thresholds, their right to a fair trial would not be materially compromised if unrepresented.

The charges were serious, but the facts were not overly complex, and both applicants, despite lacking legal training, were intelligent, educated, and accustomed to financial documents.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that they possessed the necessary skills to represent themselves and that logistical issues with disclosure could be resolved without state-funded counsel.

The defendant was charged with failure to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

A police officer observed the defendant seated in the driver's seat of a vehicle in a bar parking lot, heard the engine running, and formed reasonable suspicion that the defendant had alcohol in his body and was in care or control of the vehicle.

The officer made a lawful approved screening device demand.

The defendant refused to comply, claiming he had an ignition interlock device installed in his vehicle and was waiting for a designated driver.

The court found the demand was lawful, the refusal was unequivocal and wilful, and the defendant had no reasonable excuse for non-compliance.

The defendant was convicted.

Sentencing decision arising from convictions for a massive home collection of child pornography, making images available online, and a separate commercial enterprise that produced, marketed, imported, exported, and sold child pornography films internationally.

The court imposed consecutive penitentiary terms for the home collection and the business operation, with a concurrent sentence for possession of proceeds of crime, then reduced the global sentence after finding that the offender suffered verbal abuse, one physical assault, and other improper treatment by persons in authority while in pre-sentence custody.

Applying proceeds-of-crime jurisprudence, the court rejected the Crown's request based on gross sales and instead fixed a fine in lieu of forfeiture based on the offender's actual financial benefit.

Ancillary orders included lifetime SOIRA registration, a DNA order, a long-term s. 161 prohibition, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and probation.

The accused was convicted of possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9 to 12 months followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 18 to 24 months.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under ss. 718, 718.1 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the factors in s. 10 of the CDSA.

Emphasizing the accused’s lack of criminal record, compliance with bail, supportive community ties, and low risk of reoffending, the court concluded that a community-based sentence was appropriate.

A conditional sentence of 20 months with house arrest followed by curfew conditions was imposed.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging infringements of their rights under sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 12 during a police vehicle take down and subsequent strip searches.

The police had relied on confidential informant information and surveillance to arrest the accused for drug trafficking.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrests and the search warrant.

While the court held that one of the accused's section 8 rights was infringed because she was left completely naked for five minutes during a strip search at the police station, the court declined to stay the proceedings or exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the police conduct was not in bad faith and the evidence was crucial to the prosecution.

The offender, a 20-year-old with a related criminal record, was convicted by a jury of robbery and using an imitation firearm.

He and three others surrounded a vehicle, and one pointed an imitation firearm at the victims, demanding their property.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence, while the defence sought a sentence under two years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, balanced with the offender's youth and rehabilitative prospects, imposing a total sentence of 36 months (20 months for robbery, 16 months for the imitation firearm), less 15 months of enhanced pre-sentence credit, followed by two years of probation.

The offender was convicted after trial of robbery arising from a planned home invasion robbery targeting jewellery vendors returning home with inventory worth approximately $250,000.

Although not present during the violent robbery, the offender aided the offence by renting a vehicle used in the operation and facilitating access to a building where stolen property was transported.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the violent home invasion involving masked perpetrators and serious psychological harm to the victims.

A conditional sentence was found unavailable because the offence constituted a serious personal injury offence within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

Considering parity with other participants, mitigating factors including the offender’s lack of criminal record, limited role, pre‑trial custody, restrictive bail conditions, and immigration consequences, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months.

The accused was charged with being a party to a robbery and possession of stolen property.

The Crown alleged she aided the principals of a $250,000 jewellery robbery by renting a vehicle used as a scout and getaway car.

The case was entirely circumstantial.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the evidence, including her association with the principals and presence during the arrival of the stolen goods, led to the inexorable inference that she knew of the robbery and intended to aid it.

She was found guilty of the robbery charges but acquitted of possessing stolen travellers' cheques found in her vehicle due to lack of evidence of knowledge.

The applicants, jointly charged with trafficking in cocaine, brought applications to stay the charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to trial was approximately 28 months.

The court applied the Morin framework and found that the institutional delay of 15 months was within acceptable limits, considering the inherent time requirements of a joint trial and the actions of the accused.

The court also found minimal prejudice to the applicants.

The applications for a stay were dismissed.

During a jury trial for cocaine trafficking, the Crown invoked investigation privilege to prevent disclosure of the surveillance location from which a police officer observed the accused during an undercover drug transaction.

The court reviewed the principles governing investigative technique and observation post privilege, balancing the public interest in protecting police methods and cooperating third parties against the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.

The judge permitted extensive cross‑examination regarding the officer’s ability to observe but prohibited questions that would reveal the precise surveillance location or whether the officer was inside or outside a building.

The jury was instructed that the privilege limited defence cross‑examination and that this limitation could affect the weight given to the officer’s testimony.

The jury ultimately acquitted one accused and convicted the other.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences after police executed a search warrant at his apartment and found crack cocaine, cash, and a loaded handgun in a safe.

The accused challenged the validity of the search warrant and the lawfulness of the search under the Charter.

The court upheld the search warrant, finding the confidential informant information reliable, and ruled the search of the safe was authorized by the warrant.

During the trial, an unusual procedural issue arose requiring defence counsel to testify regarding a prior inconsistent statement made by a defence witness.

Ultimately, the court rejected the accused's testimony that he did not know about the gun, finding him guilty of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.