Richard Adam Fedorowicz

The accused, charged with fraud-related offences, brought a motion to exclude bank records obtained via a production order, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, and 11(d) of the Charter.

The accused argued that the Crown was estopped from relying on the records and that seeking a new production order mid-trial constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that issue estoppel did not apply as no prior judicial findings had been made regarding the records, and that the Crown's conduct was not oppressive or vexatious.

The court upheld the validity of the production order, concluding there were reasonable and probable grounds for its issuance, and ruled the evidence admissible.

The Crown applied for certiorari to set aside a preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge two respondents, Justin McGregor and Herve Kalonji, on various drug trafficking and criminal organization charges.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, affirming the narrow scope of jurisdictional review for preliminary inquiry decisions.

The court reiterated that such decisions are reviewable only for jurisdictional errors (e.g., failing to consider all evidence, impermissible weighing), not for errors of law or sufficiency of evidence.

The judge found that the preliminary inquiry judge properly exercised her jurisdiction in concluding there was insufficient evidence for committal, despite some potential errors in her reasoning regarding the evidence.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for assault with a weapon arising from an altercation with his landlord.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, improperly found corroboration, and applied uneven scrutiny to the defence evidence.

The summary conviction appeal court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed.

The court found the sentencing judge erred by failing to give adequate weight to the Crown's position that a conditional sentence was appropriate, and replaced the 60-day intermittent jail sentence with a 9-month conditional sentence.

The appellant was convicted of possession of heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He appealed his convictions, challenging the validity of search warrants executed at two properties.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of a garage where he only had a key and permission to store tools, as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Court also upheld the validity of the search warrant for his residence, finding that detailed information from a confidential informant, corroborated by police surveillance of hand-to-hand transactions, provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood following a traffic stop on Highway 401.

The defence challenged the reasonableness of the officer's grounds for demanding breath samples, the admissibility of observations made during the roadside investigation, and whether the breath tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of circumstances including poor driving, inability to focus, slow movements, and admission of alcohol consumption.

The court rejected the Charter violation argument, found the roadside observations admissible for proving impairment, and determined the tests were conducted as soon as practicable.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearms offences, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, as well as his 9.5-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal upheld the firearms convictions, finding no misapprehension of evidence regarding the appellant's constructive possession of a loaded handgun found under a mattress near him.

However, the court quashed the drug and proceeds of crime convictions, finding no evidence connecting the appellant to the drugs or money found in the residence.

The overall sentence remained fit and the sentence appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for robbery and firearm-related offences, as well as his 11-year sentence.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended medical and gunshot residue evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny to the defence evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

On the sentence appeal, the court upheld the 11-year sentence as fit but granted leave to vary the pre-sentence custody credit to 1.5:1 in accordance with R. v. Summers.

The accused were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery based primarily on intercepted wiretap communications over a three‑day period.

The defence argued the conversations amounted only to discussion or negotiation about a robbery and did not constitute an agreement.

The court reviewed the elements of conspiracy under s. 465 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing that the actus reus requires a true agreement or meeting of the minds to commit an indictable offence, though not all operational details must be settled.

Interpreting the wiretaps in context, the court found the accused had reached an agreement to rob a man seen counting money, conditional on obtaining a weapon and locating the target.

The subsequent failure to obtain the weapon merely frustrated the plan and did not negate the existence of the agreement.

The appellant appealed his convictions for breaking and entering, assault with a weapon, uttering a threat, and failure to comply with probation.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, rendered an unreasonable verdict, and erred in assessing identification evidence.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge properly considered the eyewitness identification alongside strong circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's post-offence conduct of hurriedly shaving his head to disguise his identity.

The court concluded the verdicts were supported by the evidence and were not unreasonable.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused applicants brought a Garofoli application seeking to exclude wiretap evidence obtained pursuant to a Part VI intercept authorization, alleging a violation of their s. 8 Charter rights.

The investigation stemmed from an armed robbery at a pawn shop where the owner was shot.

The applicants argued the information to obtain (ITO) relied on unreliable confidential informant information and that police failed to exhaust alternative investigative methods.

The court reviewed the redacted ITO and found that, even excluding the contested informant information, the remaining evidence—including DNA matches and association evidence—provided reasonable grounds for the authorization.

A supplementary application regarding police obtaining contact information from Ontario Works without a warrant was also dismissed.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused brought pre-trial motions challenging police access to his contact information from municipal social services, a production order for his cell phone records, and the admissibility of gloves and ammunition seized during execution of a robbery search warrant.

The court held that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his address and telephone number in the circumstances, and upheld the production order because the information sought would afford evidence respecting the robberies.

However, the court found the search warrant was not properly granted because the information to obtain did not establish reasonable grounds to believe the accused was one of the actual bank robbers whose clothing could be found in the searched locations.

The court further held that the Crown failed to establish lawful seizure of the gloves and ammunition under s. 489 of the Criminal Code, and that the ammunition evidence was inadmissible as discreditable conduct because its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed any probative value.

Sentencing for possession of large quantities of heroin and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, together with possession of proceeds of crime.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly specific deterrence, given the respondent's otherwise strong family support, business success, and lack of criminal record, but found those same circumstances showed the offences arose from greed rather than need.

A 10-year sentence was found fit in light of the scale of the drugs and the harm associated with heroin and cocaine trafficking.

The court granted 6 months' credit for restrictive bail conditions over approximately four years, resulting in a net global sentence of 9 years and 6 months, together with forfeiture of seized funds, a DNA order, and a s. 110 prohibition.

The appellant appealed his global sentence of 14 months and 28 days for six offences, including possession of hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking.

He argued the sentencing judge failed to weigh mitigating factors such as his mental health and addiction, and that the sentence was harsh and excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the judge's consideration of the appellant's significant criminal record and noting that hydromorphone trafficking attracts serious sentences.

Five criminal appeals arising from a major gang investigation challenged informer-privilege procedures, wiretap authorizations, general warrants, covert searches, no-knock take-down warrants, a warrantless vehicle search, jury instructions, and expert opinion evidence.

The court held that an ex parte, in camera first-stage informer privilege hearing was proper, that Criminal Code ss. 186(1.1) and 487.01 were constitutionally valid, and that the wiretap authorizations and general warrants were lawfully issued and executed.

Although one warrantless vehicle search was conducted in an unreasonable manner and one aspect of the conspiracy jury charge was erroneous, the evidence was properly admitted under s. 24(2) and the charge error caused no substantial wrong.

All convictions were upheld and all appeals were dismissed.

The Crown brought a motion to admit two out-of-court hearsay statements during a trial on an assault charge arising from a domestic dispute.

The statements consisted of a 911 recording and police notebook statements.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay exceptions, examining both necessity and threshold reliability.

The complainant claimed memory loss regarding the events.

The court found that the Crown met its burden on both prongs of the test and admitted both the 911 tape and the police notebook statements for the truth of their contents.

During a criminal trial, the court ruled on the admissibility of statements made by the accused and evidence obtained following his arrest for firearms and drug offences.

The accused alleged Charter breaches under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b), arguing the arrest lacked reasonable grounds and that police questioned him after he requested counsel.

The court held the arrest was supported by objectively reasonable grounds and the search incident to arrest was lawful, making the seized key admissible.

Spontaneous admissions of ownership of drugs were also admissible, though a statement about residence obtained through questioning after the right to counsel was asserted was excluded.

Responses given to a booking sergeant were excluded to preserve trial fairness, despite being obtained during routine booking procedures.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by relying on hearsay evidence to conclude he had knowledge of the contents of a package.

The Crown conceded the error.

The Court of Appeal found the error was an important part of the trial judge's reasoning, rendering the proviso inapplicable.

However, because there was other evidence that might sustain a conviction, the verdict was not unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The defendant was charged with drug and firearm-related offences following a search warrant executed at his residence.

The defendant brought a Charter s. 8 motion challenging the validity of the search warrant on the grounds that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was legally deficient and that the search violated his right to privacy.

The court found that the affiant made material misstatements and omissions in the ITO, including mischaracterizing a witness as a confidential informant, failing to disclose relevant information about the witness's credibility and relationship with the defendant, and providing incomplete information about the defendant's criminal record.

The court determined that paragraphs containing information from the mischaracterized witness must be excised from the ITO.

After excision, the remaining information from the legitimate confidential informant was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the search warrant.

Additionally, the court found that there was no evidentiary foundation to believe the firearm would be found at the defendant's residence.

The search warrant was set aside as improvidently issued, and the evidence seized was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his robbery conviction, arguing the trial judge failed to address material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and misapplied the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's failure to address key inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, particularly regarding whether a robbery actually occurred, deprived the appellant of a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.