R. Cary Boswell

The accused, a former elite hockey coach, was charged with historical sexual offences against a former player who was 14 to 16 years old at the time.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's categorical denials.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual exploitation, as he was in a position of trust.

However, the accused was acquitted of sexual assault for the period after the complainant turned 16, as the Crown failed to prove he actively induced her to engage in sexual activity.

This criminal trial concerned George Brazier, who faced charges of manslaughter and three counts of trafficking in controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine).

The Crown alleged that Brazier sold fentanyl and cocaine to James Glover, who subsequently died from a fentanyl overdose.

The court found Brazier guilty of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine, and of unlawful act manslaughter, concluding that his conduct in supplying the fentanyl significantly contributed to Glover's death and was objectively dangerous.

The charge of trafficking heroin was acquitted due to insufficient evidence.

The accused, Justice Snache, was charged with second-degree murder.

The trial proceeded in two stages: first, to determine guilt based on an Agreed Statement of Facts, and second, to determine criminal responsibility due to mental disorder.

The court found that the Crown proved the elements of murder beyond a reasonable doubt, including the actus reus and mens rea, based on the agreed facts and the accused's admission.

However, the court then considered the Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCRMD) defence under Section 16 of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert psychiatric evidence, particularly from Dr. Naidoo, the court found that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia at the time of the offence, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the moral and legal wrongfulness of his actions.

Consequently, the accused was found not criminally responsible for the murder and remanded to the jurisdiction of the Ontario Review Board for disposition.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought several pre-trial applications seeking to exclude his confession to police, set aside search warrants, and exclude GPS cell phone data.

The court found that while the police breached the accused's s. 8 Charter rights by conducting a non-compliant strip search, the breach did not warrant a stay of proceedings or the exclusion of his voluntary confession under s. 24(2).

The court also dismissed the Garofoli application, finding no material omissions in the search warrant informations.

Finally, the court ruled that GPS location data from the accused's phone was admissible without expert testimony, taking judicial notice of the reliability of GPS technology.

The offender, Eric Wolfe Riedl, pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and unauthorized possession of a loaded, restricted handgun.

The offences occurred during a traffic stop where police found cocaine and a loaded .22 calibre pistol with a tampered serial number in his rental vehicle.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the serious nature of the offences, the combination of drugs and guns, and the tampered firearm.

Mitigating factors included the offender's relative youth, first-offender status (apart from a bail breach), guilty plea, and significant rehabilitation efforts since the offences.

The court imposed a global sentence of 45 months imprisonment, comprising three years for the firearm offence and one year consecutive for the drug offence, with credit for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's motion for leave to issue a certificate of pending litigation, the successful defendants sought full indemnity costs of $17,800.89.

The court considered the defendants' offer to settle and the principles under Rule 49.10(2), noting that the presumptive rule for elevated costs does not strictly apply when a plaintiff's claim is entirely dismissed.

Balancing the complexity of the motion, the amount at stake, and the reasonable expectations of the parties, the court fixed costs at $11,563.29 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Ryan James Ruznisky pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, his fourth such conviction.

The court considered aggravating factors including a high blood alcohol content (207-242 mg/100mL), high speed, and collision with a residence, and mitigating factors such as his genuine remorse, significant efforts at rehabilitation for long-standing substance abuse, and a history of childhood sexual abuse.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of 120 days.

The court imposed a sentence of 120 days imprisonment, a three-year driving prohibition, and 18 months probation with a counselling requirement, emphasizing the principle of restraint and the offender's rehabilitative progress.

The defendant, Kyle Hughes, was charged with two counts of possession of child pornography and one count of making child pornography available to others.

He pleaded not guilty but chose not to contest the Crown's case, a procedure functionally equivalent to a nolo contendere plea, to preserve his right to appeal a prior Charter ruling.

The court found Hughes guilty on both counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt his knowledge and control of the child pornography and his intent to make it available through the BitTorrent network.

The defendant, Abad Abdi Shire, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder.

The court was tasked with determining the period of parole ineligibility, which can range from 10 to 25 years.

The Crown sought 18-20 years, while the defence sought 12-14 years.

The court considered the egregious circumstances of the offence, including the frenzied and prolonged attack on a defenseless victim, evidence of planning, and the devastating impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's difficult childhood marked by poverty and bullying, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the aggravating circumstances strongly outweighed the mitigating ones and imposed a parole ineligibility period of 17 years.

In a second degree murder jury trial arising from a fatal stabbing in a drug house, the accused brought a Corbett application to restrict Crown cross-examination on portions of his criminal record if he testified.

Applying the Corbett balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect under s. 12 of the Canada Evidence Act, the court held that six prior violent convictions had only modest additional probative value on credibility because the accused already had an extensive remaining record.

The court found those violent convictions highly prejudicial because of their similarity to the charged violent offence and the risk of impermissible propensity reasoning.

The application was granted and the record was redacted as requested.

During a murder trial, the accused sought to adduce evidence that his former co-accused had pled guilty to manslaughter in relation to the same killing.

The Crown opposed the admission of the plea, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially misleading.

The court held that the guilty plea was admissible as it had some relevance to the accused's credibility and defence that the co-accused was solely responsible.

However, the court ruled that the facts read in support of the co-accused's plea were inadmissible hearsay.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of graffiti found on the exterior walls of a building where a murder occurred.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought to exclude these writings from evidence, arguing they were irrelevant and highly prejudicial.

The Crown contended the writings were relevant to the accused's state of mind, either as a principal or an aider, by demonstrating animus towards the deceased or knowledge of a co-accused's intent.

The court found that the evidence, primarily a security camera video, was insufficient to connect the writings to the accused or his co-accused, rendering them logically irrelevant.

Furthermore, even if relevant, their probative value was extremely slight and significantly outweighed by the risk of moral and reasoning prejudice, given their discreditable and potentially confusing nature.

The court excluded the evidence, noting the ruling was provisional and could be revisited if the evidentiary record changed.

The accused was charged with possession and distribution of child pornography.

The police used automated software tools (the Roundup Suite) to detect the accused's IP address sharing child pornography files on the BitTorrent peer-to-peer network.

The accused brought a Charter s. 8 and Garofoli application to exclude the evidence, arguing that the automated surveillance constituted an unreasonable search and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant was flawed.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his IP address, port, or the files he knowingly exposed in a shared folder on a public network.

The court also upheld the validity of the search warrant and production order, finding the ITOs were adequate and not misleading.

Matthew Albert Valley pleaded guilty to sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and breach of probation.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, reduced by pre-sentence custody credit to a net 23 months, along with ancillary orders including DNA orders, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a communication ban with the complainant, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

A three-year probation term was also imposed.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the egregious nature of the sexual assault, the offender's extensive criminal record, and the vulnerability of the victim, while also considering the offender's youth and substance abuse issues.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time was infringed.

The total delay from the laying of charges to the anticipated end of trial was 50.5 months.

The court deducted 11 months of defence delay and 17.25 months of delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as discrete exceptional events.

The resulting net delay was 22.25 months, which fell below the 30-month Jordan ceiling for cases in the Superior Court.

The application was dismissed.

Following the settlement of an estate litigation dispute regarding the validity of a will, the parties sought a determination on costs.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs from the applicant personally, claiming success in the settlement.

The applicant, as estate trustee, sought reimbursement from the estate for her legal expenses.

The court found that neither party was successful and ordered no costs as between the parties.

However, the court held that the applicant acted reasonably in defending the will and was entitled to be fully indemnified by the estate for her legal expenses in the amount of $38,676.13.

Following a lengthy construction lien trial where the plaintiff recovered approximately $100,000 of a $250,000 claim, the plaintiff sought costs of over $239,000.

The court found that while the plaintiff was ultimately successful in obtaining a net judgment, the defendant was overwhelmingly successful on the central issue of charge-backs.

Applying principles of proportionality and considering the plaintiff's exaggerated lien claim and unreasonable litigation conduct, the court significantly reduced the plaintiff's costs, awarding a total of $87,226.43 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and administering a stupefying substance to his 11-year-old step-daughter.

During a pre-charge conference, the issue arose whether the accused could be found to have 'administered' the substances (alcohol, marijuana, and pills) if the child voluntarily consumed them.

The court ruled that the jury would not be instructed to consider consensual consumption, finding that an 11-year-old cannot give fully informed consent to consuming such substances, particularly when provided by a parent figure with the alleged intent to facilitate a sexual assault.

The Crown applied under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code to adduce the preliminary inquiry testimony of a key witness who was deemed too ill to testify at trial due to severe mental health challenges triggered by her previous testimony.

The accused opposed the application, arguing lack of full opportunity to cross-examine and trial unfairness due to new evidence.

The court found the witness was too ill to testify, the defence had a full opportunity to cross-examine her at the preliminary inquiry, and the admission of the evidence would not render the trial unfair.

The application was granted, and the transcripts were admitted as substantive evidence.

The defendants moved to strike the plaintiff's 60-paragraph statement of claim, which alleged a broad conspiracy of mortgage fraud involving numerous parties and properties.

The court struck the claim in its entirety under Rule 25.11, finding it unduly prolix, confusing, and likely to prejudice a fair trial.

However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to re-plead specific, legally viable claims related to her own property, while denying leave to re-plead claims that constituted a collateral attack on a prior judgment or sought relief on behalf of third parties.