Richard Addelman

The accused brought a constitutional challenge under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against a conviction under s. 244.2(3)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code for intentionally discharging a firearm while reckless as to the life or safety of another person.

The accused was the driver of a vehicle from which his co-accused fired a shot at another vehicle.

The accused argued the mandatory minimum sentence of five years constituted cruel and unusual punishment, relying on the principle of parity with his co-accused who received a lesser sentence.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding it was bound by precedent and that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence and the accused's instrumental role in its commission.

The accused was jointly charged with another individual on a 32-count Information including attempted murder, firearm-related offences, and drug possession charges.

The Crown withdrew charges of attempted murder and several firearm and drug possession counts.

At trial, the central issues were whether the accused had knowledge of firearms in the vehicle he was driving, whether he was a party to the firearm discharge offence, and whether he possessed drugs found upon arrest.

The court found the accused guilty of 21 counts based on circumstantial evidence establishing his knowledge and control of the firearms, his participation in the shooting incident through his driving conduct, and his possession of drugs found in the vehicle where he was arrested.

The accused was convicted after trial of multiple firearms offences, including discharging a firearm contrary to section 244.2(3) of the Criminal Code.

He brought a Charter application under section 12 to challenge the mandatory minimum sentence of seven years as grossly disproportionate.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Lloyd and determined that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the accused's prior conviction for armed robbery, the circumstances of the current offence involving multiple discharges in a residential area, and the appropriate sentencing range for such offences.

The Charter application was dismissed and the accused was sentenced to eight years imprisonment.

The appellant appealed an impaired driving conviction arising from a rear-end collision on Highway 417.

He argued that the trial judge gave inadequate reasons on alleged Charter breaches and failed to connect impairment observed at the police station back to the time of driving.

The appeal court held that no Grant analysis under s. 24(2) was required because no evidence was obtained as a result of the Charter breaches, and no basis existed for a stay.

The court further held that the trial judge reasonably relied on significant physical indicia of impairment observed within 45 to 60 minutes of driving, together with the totality of the evidence, to find at least slight impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, facing 11 serious fraud charges, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided.

Legal Aid had refused his application because his family members declined to complete financial assessments.

The court found that the case was complex, the applicant lacked the legal training to represent himself, and he did not have the personal financial means to retain counsel.

The court held that family members are not obligated to fund an accused's defence.

The application was granted, and a conditional stay was entered until the Attorney General provides funding for counsel.

The accused pleaded guilty to four charges involving passport fraud, including causing the Passport Office to use forged documents in issuing passports, possession of forged passports, possession of a false wig with intent to commit an indictable offence, and use of a forged passport.

The offences occurred between 2009 and 2011 and were part of a sophisticated scheme to obtain false Canadian passports and identity documents to unlawfully bring his children from Kuwait to Canada, circumventing a custody order that prohibited their removal.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment followed by 12 months probation, rejecting a conditional sentence despite mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, positive pre-sentence report, lack of criminal record, medical condition, and family support.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, possession of marijuana, and breach of probation following an incident on January 16, 2012.

The accused conceded causing bodily harm but claimed self-defence under section 34(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the initial use of force was justified, the accused continued the assault long after the threat was neutralized, acting out of anger rather than self-defence.

The court convicted the accused of assault causing bodily harm and breach of probation, and acquitted on the marijuana charge.

The accused was charged with possession of crack cocaine and marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police executed a search warrant at his apartment after observing short visits indicative of drug trafficking, finding drugs and cash.

The accused testified that the marijuana was for his personal use and that the crack cocaine belonged to his roommate, an exotic dancer who was a cocaine addict.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court found the accused's testimony plausible and noted shortcomings in the police investigation, including the failure to call the roommate as a witness.

The court acquitted the accused of the trafficking and proceeds of crime charges, but found him guilty of the lesser included offence of simple possession of marijuana based on his own admission.

The accused, a 20-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to one count of Attempt to Obstruct Justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was observed cleaning the interior of a vehicle that had been used in a homicide, removing evidence including blood and other forensic material.

The Crown sought a 12-month jail sentence plus probation, while the defence sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict conditions, followed by 2 years probation, along with a 5-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

Following trial convictions for sexual assault-related offences against a child, the court imposed sentence with primary emphasis on denunciation, deterrence, and separation from society under sections 718 and 718.01 of the Criminal Code.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including repeated abuse over years, abuse of parental trust, use of a weapon, and attempts to silence the victim with money, while identifying few mitigating factors.

The court also treated lack of insight and poor response to prior programming as relevant to rehabilitation prospects, without treating denial of guilt as an aggravating factor.

A global penitentiary sentence of six years was imposed, with 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody for charges predating February 22, 2010.

Ancillary lifetime orders were made for weapons prohibition, DNA collection, sex offender registration, and child-contact restrictions, along with no-contact orders during custody and post-release.

The appellant appealed a conviction for refusing to provide breath samples under s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal argued that the trial judge failed to adequately address significant inconsistencies in the evidence of police witnesses concerning signs of impairment and the suitability of a breath sample accepted by the breathalyser machine.

The court held that the trial judge’s reasons did not explain how credibility conflicts among the officers were resolved, particularly regarding the arresting officer’s observations and the breath technician’s rejection of an accepted sample.

Applying the functional approach to adequacy of reasons articulated in Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court concluded that the reasons did not permit meaningful appellate review.

A new trial was ordered.

The offender was convicted of multiple offences including trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffic as part of a mid-level drug operation known as Project Bulldawg.

Despite strong family support and evidence that the offender was an addict-trafficker, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the kilogram-level quantities and prior trafficking record.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years imprisonment, reduced to 4 years after crediting 12 months for strict pre-trial bail conditions, along with a DNA order and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The Registrar proposed to refuse the Applicant's registration as a motor vehicle salesperson due to a prior assault conviction, pending criminal charges for assault causing bodily harm and marijuana possession, and alleged false statements on his application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant's conduct, including a physical altercation that was likely a 'flight or fight' response, did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he would fail to conduct business with honesty and integrity.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar not to carry out the proposal, subject to conditions requiring the Applicant to report the outcome of his pending charges.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Summary Conviction Appeal Court that had overturned his acquittal.

The Court of Appeal found that the summary conviction appeal judge erred in concluding the trial judge improperly treated the arresting officer's notes as evidence or required them to confirm oral testimony.

The trial judge properly used the absence of an important fact in the notes regarding the origin of the odour of alcohol to assess the officer's credibility.

The trial judge's finding of reasonable doubt regarding the officer's reasonable suspicion was restored.

The Crown appealed acquittals entered by a summary conviction appeal court on charges of impaired driving and driving over the legal limit.

The respondent had been stopped for erratic driving, admitted to being high on drugs, and gave an ambiguous response when advised of his right to counsel.

He subsequently failed a roadside screening device test and a breathalyzer test.

The Court of Appeal restored the trial judge's conviction on the over 80 charge, finding no breach of the respondent's right to counsel, and conditionally stayed the impaired driving charge under the Kienapple principle.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed after a manslaughter conviction arising from the death of the accused's mother by ligature strangulation.

The court reiterated the deferential appellate standard for sentence appeals and held that a conditional sentence for manslaughter is not, in itself, an error in principle.

In light of the offender's remorse, rehabilitation, psychiatric evidence, lack of risk to the community, and the trial judge's careful consideration of the sentencing objectives in the Criminal Code, the majority found no basis to interfere.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed, with a dissent concluding that denunciation and general deterrence required custody.