Robbie John Wilfred Chartier

The court considered an application by Adrian Davey to stay proceedings on the ground of entrapment after he pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The court reviewed the sufficiency of disclosure to the defence and whether police had reasonable suspicion before offering Davey the opportunity to commit the offence.

The application was dismissed, with the court finding that the police had reasonable suspicion at the relevant time and that the defence was able to make full answer and defence.

This decision concerns a s. 24(2) Charter application to exclude evidence (a firearm) obtained following an invalid search warrant and unconstitutional police entry.

The court applied the three-factor test from R. v. Grant, finding the police conduct (gross negligence in preparing the Information to Obtain, misleading statements, lack of investigation, and warrantless entry) to be extremely serious.

While the impact on the accused's privacy interest was moderate (as he was not a resident), the seriousness of the police misconduct outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore excluded the firearm against all accused.

This decision addresses a Garofoli application to review a search warrant for firearms-related offences.

The Information to Obtain (ITO) used to secure the warrant contained significant false, misleading, and unconstitutionally obtained information, which was excised on review.

The court assessed whether, based on the amended record, reasonable grounds existed to believe an offence was committed and that evidence would be found at the residence.

While a thin basis for believing an offence was committed was found, the court concluded there were no reasonable grounds to believe evidence of the offence would be found at the residence.

This was primarily due to the lack of a direct connection between the firearm and the residence, the fact that the accused was not in possession of the firearm upon arrest, and the extensive misleading information in the original ITO undermining the affiant's credibility.

The search was deemed unreasonable, constituting a s.8 Charter breach.

The s.24(2) Charter analysis regarding the admissibility of seized evidence was deferred.

This preliminary inquiry addressed charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking against three accused.

The Crown sought to admit evidence via a s.540(7) application, primarily relying on police notebook notes.

The court found significant issues with the admissibility and trustworthiness of much of the Crown's evidence, particularly hearsay statements within officer notes, which prevented the defence from cross-examining critical witnesses.

While some drug trafficking activity was inferred, the court found insufficient evidence to establish constructive possession for most charges against Bogdan Butean and Justin David Gurley.

Natalie Tovah Abuhav was committed to stand trial only on the charge of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking Percocet, as her identification was found with those specific drugs.

The other charges against her, and all charges against Butean and Gurley, were not committed for trial due to lack of sufficient evidence for committal.

The applicant, Holly Whittaker, faced charges of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession.

She brought two Charter applications: one alleging violation of her right to silence and right to counsel (ss. 7 and 10(b)) regarding an utterance about a purse, and another alleging unlawful arrest (s. 9) and unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) leading to a strip search and seizure of fentanyl.

The court found a breach of s. 10(b) regarding the utterance, as police elicited evidence after she requested counsel without providing an opportunity to speak with counsel.

The court also found a breach of s. 9 and s. 8, concluding that the arrest lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds, as the confidential informant's tip was uncorroborated and unreliable.

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded both the utterance and the seized fentanyl and purse under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court considered whether amendments to section 535 of the Criminal Code, effective September 19, 2019, which restricted preliminary inquiries to offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years or more, applied retroactively to invalidate elections for preliminary inquiries made before the amendment.

The Crown argued that prior elections were nullified and the court lacked jurisdiction.

The defence argued the amendment did not apply retroactively to vested rights and that validly made elections survived the enactment.

The court found itself bound by the Superior Court decision in R. v. R.S., which held that the Ontario Court of Justice lost jurisdiction to conduct preliminary inquiries except for offences with a 14-year maximum penalty as of September 19, 2019.

The accused was sentenced for robbery of convenience stores.

The court imposed 12 months imprisonment on top of 123 days pre-sentence custody (credited as 185 days), for a total of 18 months, followed by three years probation.

The sentencing judge emphasized the need for rehabilitation given the accused's neurological challenges and substance abuse issues, and made a strong recommendation for placement in either OCI or St. Lawrence correctional facilities.

The court balanced the need for a strong community message regarding convenience store robberies with a measured increase in sentence length to facilitate rehabilitation.

Six defendants were charged with multiple offences including criminal organization offences, fraud, conspiracy to commit fraud, and trafficking in identification and firearms.

The Crown's case relied heavily on six months of intercepted telephone calls and BBMs, bank records, expert evidence on account takeover frauds, and search warrant results.

The trial lasted one year.

The court found that Mr. Kalonji engaged in account takeover frauds involving insiders, hackers, and runners.

Mr. Henry was found guilty of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud.

Ms. Galbraith was found guilty of conspiracy to commit fraud.

Mr. Simmons-McKenzie was acquitted due to insufficient voice identification evidence.

Ms. Munyenga and Ms. Robinson were acquitted of conspiracy charges.

All defendants were acquitted of criminal organization offences due to insufficient evidence of the requisite structure and organization.

Mr. Kalonji was convicted of the lesser included offence of trafficking in identification.

Mark Christie pleaded guilty to multiple fraud and property offenses, including fraudulent use of a credit card, fraud over $5,000, possession of property obtained by crime, and failure to comply with probation.

The offenses involved a scheme to obtain credit facilities using false identification, resulting in over $106,000 for Christie.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his extensive criminal record for similar offenses and committing the current crimes while on probation.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea, strong family support, expressed remorse, and 23 months of strict house arrest pre-trial.

The Crown sought 2 years less a day plus 3 years probation, while the Defense proposed 12 to 18 months.

The judge sentenced Christie to 12 months in custody, followed by 3 years probation, a DNA order, forfeiture of his vehicle, and a restitution order of $106,524.85, taking into account the pre-trial house arrest as a mitigating factor.

The accused sought judicial interim release (bail) on charges of two counts of robbery armed with a handgun, one count of disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, and one count of assault with a weapon.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused bore the burden of proof due to the firearm allegations under section 515(6)(a)(vii).

The court found the Crown's case to be weak, based primarily on circumstantial evidence including video surveillance, vehicle identification, and clothing similarities.

The court granted bail with conditions, finding the proposed plan of release adequate and that detention would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.