Rita-Jean Maxwell

The applicant was charged with numerous firearm offences, possession of Schedule 1 controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime arising from his arrest and execution of a search warrant at 3-42 Pendeen Avenue in Toronto on March 27, 2023.

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter application challenging the validity of the search warrant.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO), after excision of inaccurate material, did not establish reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of the offences would be located at the target address.

The court concluded that the applicant's Charter rights under section 8 were breached and, applying the Grant balancing test, excluded the evidence seized from the search.

The appellant appealed from conviction and sentence for sexual interference and sexual assault.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty based on evidence of sexual touching during a car ride, while acquitting on two other alleged incidents due to reliability concerns.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the trial judge's use of prior consistent statements (text messages) to assess credibility and reliability, and his application of the W.(D.) framework and the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

The appellant also appealed the sentence of 21 months custody, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a position of trust, misapplying sentencing principles, and refusing to impose a conditional sentence.

The appellate court dismissed all grounds of appeal and the application for fresh evidence.

The accused was convicted by jury of two counts of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, two counts of careless storage of ammunition contrary to s. 86(1), and one count of possession of a prohibited device contrary to s. 92.

The accused jumped from a balcony during a police search warrant execution and was found with two loaded prohibited firearms in the laneway below.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3½ years in custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in six months remaining to be served.

The court balanced the serious nature of firearm offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence against mitigating factors including the accused's youth, first-time offender status, supportive family, rehabilitative potential, and harsh conditions of pre-sentence detention.

This decision concerns the trial of Jevor Brown, who was charged with sexual assault with a weapon, using an imitation firearm to commit sexual assault, forcible confinement, and sexual assault as a party with another, arising from an incident at 111 Bathurst Street, Toronto, on July 10, 2019.

Brown conceded to having non-consensual intercourse with the complainant, K.M., while his co-accused, Shayne Codrington, was also sexually assaulting her.

The main issues were whether the defence of duress applied, and whether Brown was a party to the offences involving the firearm and confinement.

The court found Brown's evidence of duress not credible or reliable, and concluded the Crown had disproved all elements of the duress defence.

Brown was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The court sentenced Jevor Brown for convictions including sexual assault with a weapon, sexual assault with another person, and forcible confinement.

The decision reviews the facts, the offender’s background, the parties’ sentencing positions, and the applicable sentencing principles.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the offender’s mental health, and the impact of anti-Black racism.

The court imposed a sentence of six years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and made ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition and SOIRA order.

The court found Rysard Rzadkowski not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of aggravated assault and weapons dangerous, following an incident in which he stabbed his landlord.

The decision turned on whether the Crown had proven the specific intent required for attempted murder.

The court concluded that, while the attack was premeditated and the injuries were life-threatening, the evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Rzadkowski intended to kill the complainant.

The court accepted the complainant’s account as credible and reliable, and found the accused’s explanations to be implausible and contradicted by the evidence.

The court sentenced Spiro Rusha to five years' imprisonment for multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including fentanyl, cocaine, and other drugs, as well as possession of property obtained by crime.

The decision reviews the aggravating and mitigating factors, the circumstances of the offences and the offender, and the applicable sentencing principles and ranges.

The court found that a penitentiary sentence was required, rejecting the defence request for a conditional sentence, and imposed ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

The court found Ryan Richard Cunneen not criminally responsible (NCR) for the offences of unlawful act manslaughter and mischief, following a psychiatric assessment and hearing.

The decision reviews the legal and medical standards for NCR under section 16 of the Criminal Code, the evidence of Mr. Cunneen’s longstanding schizoaffective disorder, and the expert opinion that his psychosis rendered him incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court accepted the parties’ consent to the NCR verdict after confirming Mr. Cunneen’s informed and voluntary agreement.

The accused, Spiro Rusha, was charged with multiple counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the quantity and variety of drugs seized, substantial cash, and drug paraphernalia.

The defence argued for personal use and legitimate income.

The court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, rejecting his explanations for drug possession and cash.

Applying principles of circumstantial evidence, the court concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the substances were for trafficking and the money was proceeds of crime.

Rusha was found guilty on all counts.

The Applicant sought an advance equalization payment or interim disbursement of $100,000 and an order for outstanding disclosure.

The court dismissed the financial requests, finding the Applicant had not demonstrated need, had prior funds unaccounted for, had surplus income, engaged in significant discretionary spending, and made no efforts to seek employment.

The court also found insufficient evidence to support the requested amount.

Regarding disclosure, the court found the Respondent had largely complied since retaining counsel, but ordered further responses on two specific items and a status update.

The accused, Shagghary Scott, was pulled over for speeding, leading to a vehicle search and the seizure of a firearm.

Scott brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) related to arbitrary detention, failure to advise of reasons for detention, failure to provide rights to counsel, and unlawful search.

The court found multiple serious Charter breaches by the police, including an unlawful search of the vehicle under the Liquor Licence Act, failure to provide rights to counsel forthwith, and failure to ascertain the accused's decision regarding counsel.

The court concluded that admitting the firearm evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

Consequently, the firearm evidence was excluded, and the charges against the accused were dismissed.

The accused, J.S.M., was found guilty after a trial of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his step-daughter, S.G., who was between 9 and 13 years old at the time.

The abuse was regular, occurred over four years, involved various sexual acts, and was often in exchange for money, exploiting a significant breach of trust within the family home.

The Crown sought a 9-year sentence, while the defence proposed 5 years, considering harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court imposed an 8-year sentence for sexual interference, with the invitation to sexual touching count running concurrently, and the sexual assault count stayed under Kienapple principles.

The judgment emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for child sexual violence, consistent with Supreme Court guidance in Friesen and Woodward.

Ancillary orders included lifetime Sex Offender Registry registration, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-contact order.

The accused, J.S.M., was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching involving his stepdaughter.

The trial focused on the complainant's credibility and reliability, as there were no other witnesses.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness, despite memory limitations regarding dates and chronology, due to the vivid and consistent details of the abuse.

The defence arguments regarding lack of opportunity and motives to fabricate were rejected.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicant, charged with drug and firearm offences, brought a motion under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence obtained via a search warrant.

The applicant argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the warrant lacked sufficient grounds to justify the search of his residence and vehicle, and that the affiant misled the issuing justice.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, including redacted confidential informant information, provided a credibly-based probability that evidence of drug trafficking would be found at the applicant's residence and in his vehicle.

The court concluded that the applicant's section 8 rights were not breached.

The accused, Damodar Arapakota, was charged under s. 3(1)(a) of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) for allegedly providing a material benefit (a US trip valued at approximately $20,000) to a Botswanan public official, Dr. Omponye Coach Kereteletswe, as consideration for official acts to obtain a business advantage for his company, Imex Systems Inc. The Crown argued the trip was consideration for letters confirming a contract and its value.

The defence contended the trip was for convenience and partially reimbursed, and the letters did not provide a material business advantage.

The court found that while a material benefit was conferred, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the benefit was "as consideration for" the letters (lacking a quid pro quo) or that the letters provided a material "advantage in business" as required by the CFPOA.

The accused was found not guilty.

The offender, J.B., was found guilty after trial of sexual assault and sexual interference against J.M., the daughter of a friend and neighbor.

The offences occurred over approximately two years, when J.M. was between 10 and 12 years old, involving multiple incidents of sexual touching and vaginal penetration.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's young age, the extended duration and high degree of physical interference, the offender's breach of a father-like position of trust, and the profound impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and community support.

Gladue principles were considered but found to have a weak causal link to the offender's criminality.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10 to 12 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court imposed a 9-year penitentiary sentence for sexual interference, with the sexual assault count stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a no-contact order with the complainant and her mother while in custody, and a lifetime s. 161 order.

The applicant, Shaun Blackman, charged with threatening death and intimidating a justice participant, brought a pre-trial application under sections 7 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He alleged that police failed to seize and preserve crucial evidence related to threatening Instagram posts, thereby impairing his right to make full answer and defence.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police's actions did not constitute unacceptable negligence and that no Charter violation occurred, as the relevant evidence was preserved in substance and the defence retained the ability to challenge it at trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction for uttering a threat to cause death, assault with a weapon, and failing to comply with an undertaking, arguing the trial judge erred in rejecting his self-defence claim and in assessing evidence.

The appellant also sought to introduce fresh evidence, which was denied for lack of due diligence and cogency.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.D. framework, thoroughly considered all evidence, and provided cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant's credibility and self-defence claim.

The court affirmed the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments, concluding there was no legal error or misapprehension of evidence.

This decision concerns the sentencing of H.W., who was found guilty by a jury of three counts of sexual assault and three counts of sexual interference against the daughters of his common-law partner.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victims' young age (10-13), abuse of trust within a familial context, multiple victims, and the significant, long-lasting impact on the complainants.

Mitigating factors included the offender's own traumatic history as a child victim of sexual abuse, lack of support, experience with anti-Black racism, a substantial gap in his criminal record, and the collateral consequences of serving a sentence during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown sought 4-5 years, while the defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment, with three sexual assault counts stayed.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order with the victims.

The applicant, charged with firearm offences, brought a Charter application alleging unlawful detention, unreasonable search, and excessive force by police, seeking exclusion of evidence (a firearm) or a stay of proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the police had objectively reasonable grounds for investigative detention to prevent interference with a search warrant execution.

It was determined that no search occurred as the firearm fell from the applicant during a lawful struggle to gain control.

The court also found that rights to counsel were provided as soon as reasonable, and the force used (a "football tackle" and subsequent strikes) was objectively reasonable given the immediate danger posed by an unsecured firearm and the applicant's resistance.