Robb Mark MacDonald

The defence brought an application seeking directions regarding the timing of a section 276 application to question the complainant regarding previous sexual activity.

The defence sought to bring the application during trial after the complainant testified, arguing that advance notice would allow the complainant to tailor her evidence.

The Crown sought a pre-trial hearing.

The court directed that the section 276 application be brought before trial commenced, finding that the complainant already possessed knowledge of the text messages at issue and the potential contradictions with her police statement, thereby minimizing any prejudicial effect of pre-trial disclosure.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in cocaine contrary to s 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Over a period of months, the accused sold cocaine to undercover officers on ten occasions, progressing from small amounts to a final transaction involving half a kilogram for $28,000.

A search of the accused's residence yielded approximately 193 grams of cocaine, scales, packaging material, and cash.

A Gladue report was prepared and a sentencing circle was held to consider the accused's personal circumstances as an Indigenous person and systemic factors contributing to the offences.

The Crown sought a four-year sentence, while the defence proposed a restorative justice approach with three to six months custody followed by probation, or alternatively, the minimum federal term of two years.

The court imposed a global sentence of three years and six months, reflecting the serious nature of commercial-level cocaine trafficking while considering the accused's rehabilitation efforts, guilty plea, and Indigenous heritage.

The accused Ashley Perry and Christian Walters were charged with unlawful possession of a loaded restricted firearm, two over-capacity magazines, and cocaine following a police search warrant executed at their apartment.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The court found that while the Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Perry had knowledge and control of the contraband items, it could establish that Walters had such knowledge, either because he placed the items himself or was informed of their location by his brother or an associate.

Perry was acquitted on all counts; Walters was convicted.

The Crown charged two defendants with aggravated assault of a family member who sustained extensive facial bruising, stitches, and two significant fractures to her orbital bone on December 2, 2017.

The complainant gave two irreconcilable accounts: initially reporting a violent attack by both defendants to medical staff and police, then recanting at trial and claiming she had tripped and fallen down the stairs.

The court admitted the complainant's prior police statement under the KGB doctrine and found it more credible than her trial testimony.

However, the court concluded that while the evidence was highly suspicious of guilt and probably showed the assault occurred, the absence of independent corroborating evidence combined with the complainant's demonstrated willingness to fabricate evidence and her motive to do so created a reasonable doubt.

Both defendants were acquitted.

During a jury trial for possession of a firearm, trafficking, and proceeds of crime, the Crown sought to have a key witness, the defendant's common-law spouse, declared an adverse witness under s. 9(1) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The witness's testimony contradicted prior statements and other evidence regarding consent to search, the defendant's movements, vehicle contents, and the source of seized cash.

The court found the witness adverse, citing inconsistencies and a motive to assist the defendant.

Leave was granted for the Crown to cross-examine her on specific points, with limiting instructions to the jury to ensure trial fairness.

The accused was tried on multiple counts of assault with a weapon, sexual assault, and assault arising from alleged incidents within a marriage.

The court reviewed the complainant's testimony, prior statements, documentary communications, and supporting witnesses, and applied the W.(D.) framework together with the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

While recognizing that impermissible myths and stereotypes cannot govern the assessment of sexual assault evidence, the court found material inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's account on critical details, and found the supporting evidence insufficient to cure those concerns.

The accused's evidence, viewed in the context of the whole record, at minimum raised a reasonable doubt.

Findings of not guilty were entered on all counts.

A 20-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in MDMA involving small quantities (3.09 and 13 grams).

The Crown sought a nine-month custodial sentence.

The court suspended the passing of sentence and imposed probation, finding that incarceration would not serve the sentencing objectives and would be disproportionate given the offender's youth, early guilty plea, positive pre-sentence report, demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation efforts, strong family support, and excellent academic performance.

The court emphasized individualized proportionality and the principle of restraint in the use of imprisonment.

The accused applied under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court assessed delay under the framework from R. v. Morin, allocating periods between inherent time requirements, Crown delay, and institutional delay.

Crown and institutional delay totalled approximately 19 months, modestly exceeding the Morin guideline range of 14–18 months.

While much of the claimed prejudice was typical of criminal charges, one accused demonstrated significant personal, financial, and health-related prejudice arising from the delay.

Balancing the factors, including prejudice and the seriousness of the charges, the court found the delay unreasonable and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with residential break and enter and possession of stolen property.

The Crown proceeded by indictment and the accused elected trial in Ontario Court of Justice.

The trial proceeded over three days.

The Crown called five witnesses and the defence called one witness (the accused's mother).

The court found the accused guilty of break and enter based on circumstantial evidence including his presence near the property at the time of the offence, possession of tools consistent with break and enter, and possession of stolen items identified by the victim.

The court found the accused not guilty of possession of stolen property as the Crown failed to provide evidence regarding the stolen cell phones particularized in the information.

The applicant, Mohamed Abdul-Hamid, brought a Charter application under ss. 8, 9, and 24(2) to exclude a kilogram of cocaine found in his vehicle following a gunpoint arrest.

The police had conducted surveillance based on confidential informant tips regarding a co-accused, Michele Santonato, and observed a suspected drug transaction involving a shoebox handed off by another co-accused, Christopher Italiano, to the applicant.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the informant tips and police surveillance.

The court also held that the subsequent search of the applicant's vehicle was a valid search incident to arrest.

The Charter applications were dismissed.

Police conducted surveillance on a residence linked through confidential informants to a suspected large‑scale cocaine trafficker.

Officers observed an individual leave the residence carrying a shoebox, meet briefly with the accused in a vehicle, and transfer the box before the accused drove away.

The accused was arrested shortly afterward and police discovered a kilogram of cocaine in the shoebox during a vehicle search.

The accused argued the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds and that the search violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court held that the informant information, combined with police surveillance and the officer’s experience in drug investigations, established objectively reasonable grounds for arrest and justified the search incident to arrest.

The Charter application was dismissed and the seized cocaine was admitted as evidence.