Robert Christie

The accused, a shift manager at a fast-food restaurant, was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation against two subordinate teenage employees.

The complainants alleged that the accused intentionally touched their buttocks and breast while working in close proximity.

The court applied the W.(D.) principles to assess credibility, finding the complainants' evidence compelling and the accused's testimony internally inconsistent and evasive.

The court rejected the accused's claim that any touching was accidental or for a work-related purpose.

The accused was found guilty on all four counts.

The appellant appealed a twenty-month custodial sentence for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking, arguing that the sentencing judge should have imposed a conditional sentence.

The Court of Appeal held that although a conditional sentence may be available in unusual opioid-trafficking cases, denunciation and general deterrence will typically require incarceration.

The sentencing judge conducted a case-specific analysis, and the applicable deferential sentence-appeal standard disclosed no basis for appellate intervention.

Leave to appeal sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The accused was stopped for speeding and driving with an expired licence.

The officer detected an odour of alcohol and made an approved screening device (ASD) demand.

The accused immediately rolled up his window, locked the doors, and refused to communicate, barricading himself in the vehicle for nearly an hour.

The accused argued the officer lacked grounds for the demand, that the officer's muting of his body-worn camera breached his s. 7 Charter rights, and that he relied on incorrect legal information from another officer (officially induced error).

The court rejected all defences, finding the officer had reasonable suspicion, the muted camera did not result in lost evidence, and the operative refusal occurred before the incorrect information was provided.

The accused was found guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court found S.P. guilty of one count of sexual interference, accepting the complainant's evidence and the accused's own admissions in text messages as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable doubt as to a second alleged incident, citing inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and corroborating evidence from other witnesses and the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the law on credibility, reasonable doubt, motive, and the assessment of child witness evidence in sexual offence cases.

The applicant, charged with intimate partner violence, sought a bail variation under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code to permit contact with his wife.

The Crown opposed the variation, arguing there was no material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the applicant's new surety and voluntary counselling constituted a material change.

Balancing the need to protect the complainant with the secondary theme of family unity, the court allowed the variation, permitting contact with the complainant provided another adult is present, though cohabitation was not yet permitted.

The applicant, facing extradition to the United States on charges of money laundering, sought a review of a decision denying him judicial interim release.

He proposed a new release plan involving house arrest, GPS monitoring, and his brother and sister-in-law as sureties.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the primary and secondary grounds.

The court concluded he posed a significant flight risk given his lack of ties to Canada, history of using false documents, and the potential lengthy sentence in the US.

The court also found detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the risk of him continuing to operate a money laundering business while on bail.

This is a bail review application under s.520 of the Criminal Code, seeking to overturn a detention order.

The applicant argued for a material change in circumstances based on a proposed change in suretyship, an increased surety commitment, and the addition of electronic monitoring.

The court found that the electronic monitoring was not a material change and that the proposed new surety, despite being more senior, was not in a better position to supervise than previous sureties.

The court concluded that the changes did not address the original reason for detention, which was a loss of public confidence in the administration of justice due to the applicant's repeated breaches of release conditions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following her detention on charges including possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and breaching her recognizance.

She argued that the proposed addition of an electronic monitoring condition constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court applied the St. Cloud framework and found that the addition of electronic monitoring was a minor modification to the original plan, which already included a household security system.

The court concluded that this change would not have affected the initial justice's decision to detain the applicant on the tertiary ground, and dismissed the application.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and MDMA to an undercover officer contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant raised the defence of entrapment seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court found that police had a reasonable suspicion the defendant was engaged in drug trafficking based on a tip from a known confidential source that was compelling and corroborated through database searches and social media verification.

The court also found the police were acting pursuant to a bona fide inquiry into a cell phone number reasonably suspected of facilitating drug trafficking.

The defendant's testimony that he was pressured into selling cocaine was rejected as not credible.

The entrapment defence was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and assault against his spouse.

The Crown sought three years imprisonment; the offender sought 21-24 months.

The court imposed 27 months for sexual assault (reflecting a 90-day reduction from 30 months for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit) and 4 months concurrent for assault.

The court rejected the offender's argument for a lower sentence despite it being a single incident, finding the violence surrounding and during the assault, combined with significant victim impact, warranted a penitentiary sentence to fulfill denunciation and deterrence objectives.

Immigration consequences were not considered as a mitigating factor.

Ancillary orders included DNA, SOIRA registration for 20 years, weapons prohibition, and contact prohibition.

Massud Nawabi was convicted by a jury of importing 4.04 kilograms of cocaine.

The court addressed two factual issues for sentencing: continuity of the cocaine and its total weight/purity.

The court found continuity proven for the entire 4.04 kg despite an unsealed package incident, and affirmed that weight is not adjusted for purity.

Considering general deterrence as the overriding factor for cocaine importation, and mitigating factors such as no prior criminal record and remorse, the court imposed a sentence of seven years in custody, along with ancillary orders for DNA samples and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

A recommendation was made for the sentence to be served in Quebec.

The defendant, David D’Souza, was sentenced after being convicted of possession of heroin and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

Police surveillance led to a search of his auto body shop, where 34.2 grams of heroin, dime baggies, a debt book, and cash were found.

The jury acquitted him of trafficking but convicted him of the possession charges.

The Crown sought a five-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed two years less two days.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the pernicious nature of heroin and the defendant's commercial motive.

Considering aggravating factors (commercial profit, mature age, not an addict) and mitigating factors (no prior criminal record, loving family, community involvement), the court imposed a four-year custodial sentence concurrently for both counts, along with a DNA order and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with theft of a cellphone, assault, unlawful confinement, and uttering a threat to kill.

The Crown proceeded on the assault, unlawful confinement, and threat charges after withdrawing the theft charge.

The trial involved evidence of a domestic dispute between the accused and the complainant, including video recordings of the initial interaction.

The accused raised a self-defence claim.

The court found the accused guilty of assault but acquitted on the unlawful confinement and threat charges, finding insufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt on those counts and determining that the self-defence claim failed on the assault charge.

Sentencing following conviction for attempted robbery committed in the course of a planned home invasion targeting a marijuana seller.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence were the paramount objectives, but also considered the offender's youth, limited record, stable employment, family support, and rehabilitative progress.

Although the offender had spent approximately four years and eight months on restrictive bail terms, the court declined to grant equivalent credit because sentencing had been repeatedly adjourned by the defence and no effort had been made to vary the recognizance conditions.

A sentence of 20 months' incarceration, followed by 12 months' probation, was imposed, together with ancillary weapons and DNA orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault against his former domestic partner.

This was the second assault conviction involving the same victim, with a prior conviction in 2007.

The court imposed a sentence of 22 days imprisonment on an intermittent basis, with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 24 months probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, a 500-metre exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, and mandatory participation in alcohol assessment and counselling programs.

The court rejected both a suspended sentence and a conditional sentence, finding that specific deterrence and denunciation of domestic violence required a custodial sentence.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a shooting at a residential home in Brampton on February 9, 2012.

Between 8 and 10 shots were fired into the Dos Santos family home using a restricted firearm belonging to the accused.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the accused's connection to a person with apparent motive (Z.A., who had been arrested after threatening the family) and his exclusive control over the firearm used.

The accused testified in his defence, denying involvement and suggesting his younger brother Danish may have been responsible.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as internally inconsistent and found him guilty of most charges, finding that the only rational inference from the circumstantial evidence was that the accused committed the shooting.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, wilful damage to property, and uttering a death threat arising from a road rage incident involving a dump truck and a pickup truck on a highway.

Evidence from an independent witness established that both drivers engaged in aggressive driving, including cutting each other off, braking to obstruct the other, and throwing objects.

The court rejected the accused’s testimony and found that his operation of the dump truck constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver under s. 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of assault with a weapon, mischief causing damage, or uttering threats.

The accused was convicted of dangerous driving and acquitted on the remaining counts.

The appellants appealed a decision applying the doctrine of res judicata based on prior CCAA proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appellants were neither parties nor privies in interest to the prior proceedings.

The court noted that the appellants only participated as witnesses and that respondents' counsel had previously indicated that findings in the CCAA proceedings would not affect proceedings against other parties.