Raj Vijan

The defendant, Kenton Lee-Diggs, was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device, mischief under $5000, and cruelty to animals.

Following a dismissed Charter voir dire, the defendant conceded the impaired driving and mischief charges.

The court found the defendant guilty of cruelty to animals based on the complainant's credible and detailed testimony.

However, the defendant was found not guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample because the specific demand for an Approved Screening Device (ASD) as charged was never made by any officer; rather, demands were made for an approved instrument.

This is a Charter application brought by the accused, Kenton Lee-Diggs, alleging violations of his s. 7 (security of person) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The accused claimed a s. 7 violation due to being forced to urinate in an interview room, and s. 10(b) violations due to an unreasonable delay in accessing counsel and being denied counsel of choice.

The court found no s. 7 violation, as the accused did not clearly communicate his need for a washroom to officers.

Regarding s. 10(b), the court found no violation of the right to counsel of choice, noting the accused declined an early offer to contact his lawyer and did not express dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

The court also found no unreasonable delay in accessing counsel, attributing much of the time to the accused's uncooperative conduct and the reasonable operational demands of a busy police station.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the impugned evidence was ruled admissible for trial.

The appellant, Justice Okojie, appealed his convictions for importing and possessing heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The primary ground of appeal concerned when the offence of importing is complete, particularly in controlled delivery scenarios, arguing it was complete before his involvement.

The second ground challenged the reasonableness of the verdict, asserting that his knowledge of the package containing a controlled substance was not the only reasonable inference.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, clarifying that importing is complete when the contraband is no longer under the control of customs authorities, and upholding the trial judge's finding of knowledge based on circumstantial evidence.

The Attorney General for Ontario and the Criminal Lawyers' Association of Ontario (CLA) sought leave to intervene in an upcoming appeal concerning the scope of the actus reus of importing contraband.

The Attorney General sought to argue the impact of the definition on provincial prosecutions of importing firearms and child pornography.

The CLA sought to argue that extending the actus reus beyond the immediate entry point disproportionately impacts racialized communities, relying on social context evidence.

The court granted both applications for leave to intervene, finding the proposed arguments and materials relevant and non-controversial.

The accused was charged with importing heroin, conspiring to import heroin, possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and conspiring to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The charges arose from a controlled delivery of a package containing heroin concealed in mascara tubes.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the package contained a controlled substance and that it came from outside Canada.

The accused was found guilty of importing heroin and possession for the purpose of trafficking, but acquitted of the conspiracy charges due to insufficient evidence of an agreement with others.

The defendant, Justice Uagbae Okojie, was charged with importing heroin and using a forged document.

He pleaded not guilty to both.

The court found him guilty of using a forged document based on an Agreed Statement of Facts.

For the importing charge, the court analyzed the actus reus and mens rea of importing, relying on Bell v. The Queen and R. v. Foster.

The court concluded that the actus reus of importing was complete when the drugs cleared customs, which occurred before Okojie's involvement in picking up the package.

Furthermore, even if Okojie's actions constituted aiding importing, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew the drugs originated from outside Canada.

Consequently, Okojie was found not guilty of importing heroin.

This addendum to a bail review endorsement clarifies that Crown counsel cannot cross-examine sureties about admissions made by the accused regarding the alleged offence.

The court found such questioning improper as it constitutes an unfair exploitation of the bail hearing for discovery purposes, infringes upon the accused's right against self-incrimination, and is largely extraneous to the bail decision.

The practice is detrimental to the accused-surety relationship and wasteful of judicial resources.