Philip A. Downes

Criminal trial on multiple counts of assault, assault causing bodily harm, and failing to comply with probation orders arising from three alleged incidents of intimate partner violence in 2023.

The Crown invited dismissal of charges relating to the third incident.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, finding that her combative demeanour under cross-examination was attributable to the prolonged proceedings, the manner of cross-examination, and her personal circumstances as a young Indigenous woman, rather than reflecting on her truthfulness.

The court found the complainant's core evidence on the remaining two incidents was compelling, internally consistent, and corroborated by CCTV footage, medical records, body-worn camera evidence, and photographic documentation of injuries.

Matthew Bouffard pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of his infant daughter, Isabelle, who died at 27 days old from head injuries and suffered numerous other severe injuries including broken ribs, fractured clavicles, and fractured vertebrae.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the profound abuse of parental trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the multiple, severe injuries inflicted over time.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and mental health issues.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence, and the defence sought five to six years.

The court imposed an eight-year penitentiary sentence, with 15 months of credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of six years and nine months.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in MDMA and marijuana and possession of currency obtained by crime.

Following a trial, the court found that the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 10(b) were violated.

The search of the accused's bag during investigative detention was not justified on safety grounds.

More significantly, the police failed to implement the accused's repeated requests to speak to counsel from the time of his detention through his arrest and overnight custody.

The court excluded all evidence seized pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, convicted of sixteen counts of fraud, brought an application for a mistrial alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective in her representation.

The central issue was whether the applicant or his counsel made the decision that he would not testify in his own defence.

The court found that trial counsel made the decision contrary to the applicant's express wishes and without adequately informing him that the decision to testify was ultimately his to make.

The court declared a mistrial, finding that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, robbery, and possession of stolen property following a trial in which he was acquitted of attempted murder.

The offences arose from a brutal and unprovoked attack on the victim at an ATM machine, involving repeated assaults, robbery of personal items, and leaving the victim for dead.

The victim sustained severe traumatic brain injury with diffuse axonal injury and nasal fracture, resulting in permanent disability and life-altering consequences.

The court imposed a sentence of 8.5 years imprisonment, with 2 years concurrent for robbery and 6 months concurrent for possession of stolen property, minus 20 months pre-sentence custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in a net sentence of 6 years and 10 months.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, robbery, and possession of stolen property following a brutal assault on the victim in an ATM kiosk.

The accused admitted to the assault and the property offences but denied the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder.

The court found that while the assault was prolonged, violent, and repetitive, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused specifically intended to kill the victim.

The court acquitted on attempted murder but convicted on the admitted charges.

The accused was charged with stunt racing contrary to s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for driving at 161 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 401, exceeding the speed limit by 61 km/h.

The Crown relied on Lidar speed detection evidence from a trained officer.

The defence challenged the accuracy of the Lidar reading and suggested the officer's vehicle was moving when the reading was taken.

The court found stunt racing to be a strict liability offence with a due diligence defence available.

The Crown proved the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused failed to establish the due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was charged with Over 80 (driving with a blood alcohol content exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood).

The trial turned on Charter applications regarding the admissibility of breath sample evidence.

The court rejected the defence argument that reply evidence regarding the calibration date of the approved screening device should be admitted.

The court found no violation of the accused's section 10(b) rights to counsel or section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court concluded that the officer had objectively reasonable grounds to rely on the approved screening device fail, and that even if there had been a Charter breach, the evidence would be admissible under section 24(2).

The accused was found guilty of Over 80.

Media organizations applied under section 487.3(4) of the Criminal Code to unseal and publish portions of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant in Project Traveller proceedings.

The court had previously ordered the unsealing of a heavily redacted version with a publication ban.

The accused sought to maintain restrictions on publication regarding: (1) evidence adduced at bail hearings, (2) criminal antecedents, and (3) references to a prior search warrant.

The court declined to rule on bail hearing evidence, continued the publication ban on criminal antecedents, and lifted the ban on prior warrant references except for the name of the individual searched.

Media organizations sought to unseal search warrant Information to Obtain (ITO) documents and related judicial authorizations from Project Traveller, a major criminal investigation.

The Crown sought to maintain certain redactions based on investigative technique privilege and wiretap disclosure restrictions under s. 193 of the Criminal Code.

The court ordered the unsealing of the May 31, 2013 ITO in its current redacted form with a temporary publication ban pending further submissions from counsel for the accused.

The court also ordered the Crown to provide redacted copies of remaining Project Traveller ITOs within 30 days of completing Stinchcombe disclosure to the accused, with a detailed chart explaining redactions.

Media organizations sought an order to terminate or vary a sealing order issued by Justice Marin on May 31, 2013, which sealed documents relating to search warrants executed by the Toronto Police Service between May 31 and June 14, 2013.

The Crown sought a six-month adjournment to vet the Information to Obtain (ITO) before disclosure.

The court found the Crown's proposed timeline unreasonable and contrary to the open court principle protected by the Charter.

The court ordered the Crown to provide a redacted version of the May 31 ITO on a counsel-only basis by August 27, 2013, with a return hearing scheduled for no later than September 12, 2013.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a co-worker following an incident on August 24, 2012, near a transit station in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the accused kissed the complainant without consent, placed his hand down her pants, and put her breast in his mouth.

The accused testified the encounter was consensual, initiated by the complainant.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence was tainted by significant alcohol consumption, her inability to recall certain statements, and a prior inconsistent statement to her common-law partner regarding touching that allegedly occurred inside the bar.

The accused's evidence was not undermined in cross-examination.

The judge concluded the Crown failed to prove non-consensual touching beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code, with alleged offence dates of November 14 and 16, 2011.

The Crown sought to admit an original information and a certified copy of a recognizance as evidence.

The defence challenged the admissibility of these documents on the basis that the Canada Evidence Act notice served by the Crown was deficient because it referred to an information with different offence dates than the one actually tendered.

The court ruled that while the notice was deficient under the Canada Evidence Act, both documents were admissible at common law as public documents and under the principled approach to hearsay established in R. v. Khan.