Robert F. Goldstein

During a trial for first-degree murder arising from a home invasion and robbery, the Crown brought a KGB application to admit the prior inconsistent statement of a co-perpetrator for the truth of its contents.

The co-perpetrator had confessed to undercover police officers during a 'Mr. Big' operation but recanted parts of his confession at trial.

The court found that while the statement lacked substantive reliability, it met the test for threshold reliability based on procedural reliability, as there were adequate substitutes for testing truth and accuracy, including cross-examination and the use of a truth verification strategy by the undercover officers.

The application was granted and the statement was admitted.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of criminal harassment.

The trial judge had found that while the respondent's conduct caused the complainants subjective fear, that fear was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances.

The Crown argued the trial judge applied the wrong legal test by importing a proportionality requirement and misapprehended the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the objective standard from R. v. Sim and that his factual findings regarding the nature of the respondent's emails and the complainants' reactions were supported by the evidence.

The Crown applied for a bail review after the accused was released on charges relating to two drive-by shootings, firearm possession, and drug trafficking.

The Superior Court of Justice found a material change in circumstances due to a new ballistics report linking the accused's seized handgun to the shootings.

The court also found that the justice of the peace erred in law by applying the ladder principle in a reverse onus situation, failing to conduct a proper risk analysis, and misapplying the tertiary ground test.

The court vacated the release orders and ordered the accused detained on both the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the strong Crown case and the grave risk to public safety.

Elias Osman was convicted by a jury of impaired driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death after a crash killed his friend.

The court considered aggravating factors, including high blood alcohol content and high speed, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's youth, lack of prior record, community support, genuine remorse, and significant personal injuries from the crash.

The judge found that the victim's act of grabbing the steering wheel was an intervening act, but Osman's impairment and negligence were still significant contributing causes of death.

The primary sentencing principles of general deterrence and denunciation were balanced with rehabilitation and parity.

A sentence of 5 years in penitentiary was imposed concurrently for both counts, along with a 7-year driving prohibition and a no-contact order.

This case is a re-hearing on damages following a Divisional Court decision that remitted the matter back to the trial judge for a proper valuation of the plaintiff's 25% share interest in the defendant company, My Insurance Brokerage (MIB), after a breach of contract.

The court assessed conflicting expert evidence on share valuation, utilizing both income/cash flow and market multiple methods.

The plaintiff's expert's opinion was approached with caution due to an undisclosed professional relationship and unrealistic assumptions regarding minority discount and the impact of the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

While generally preferring the defendant's expert's methodology, the court found an error in valuing MIB as a start-up and ordered an upward adjustment to the cash flow multiple.

The final fair market value of the shares was to be determined as the midpoint between the recalculated income/cash flow valuation and the market method valuation.

Samuel Kebede brought a Garofoli application to exclude drug evidence, arguing that the search warrant was invalid due to material misrepresentations in the information to obtain (ITO) and insufficient informant information, thereby violating his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found two minor, good-faith misrepresentations in the ITO that were not material to the justice of the peace's decision to issue the warrant.

The court also determined that the confidential informant tips were sufficiently compelling, corroborated, and credible, despite some weaknesses in credibility and corroboration, especially given the urgency associated with firearms.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, as the process of obtaining the warrant was not found to be subversive of the prior authorization system.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) sought to unseal the remaining redacted portions (approximately 25%) of an Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant related to an RCMP investigation into alleged investor fraud by Fortress Real Capital Inc. and associated entities.

The Crown resisted, arguing that further disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation and prejudice innocent third parties.

The court, applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, found that the Crown had justified the redactions, citing a serious and specific risk to the integrity of the investigation due to undisclosed law enforcement techniques and the potential for specific financial harm to an innocent person.

The court also noted the ongoing nature of the investigation and the large volume of unanalyzed seized material as factors supporting continued redaction of other third parties' identities.

The application for further unsealing was dismissed.

The applicant, C.W., charged with second-degree murder, sought bail.

The Crown conceded the primary and secondary grounds could be met with appropriate sureties, but opposed on the tertiary ground, arguing that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court considered the proposed house arrest plan with sureties (the applicant's aunt and uncle), the applicant's minor and dated criminal record, his Indigenous status, and the application of Gladue factors.

Despite concerns about the applicant's disrespectful attitude during a police interview and the gravity of the offence, the court found that the sureties were capable of supervision and that Indigenous law and customs provided sufficient incentive for compliance.

Applying the St. Cloud test and Gladue principles, the court determined that detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence and granted bail with strict conditions including house arrest, substance abuse treatment, and camera monitoring by sureties.

The applicant father sought joint custody and increased access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody, opposed increased access, and requested a change of the children's surname, retroactive child support, and special expenses.

The court granted joint custody, maintained the current access schedule for one year with leave to reapply for increased access, ordered the children's surname to be hyphenated (Cuthbert-Nolis), and partially granted retroactive child support and special expenses based on imputed income for a period of the father's intentional unemployment.

The court found both parents' credibility suspect due to mutual animosity and exaggeration.

The appellants, Showcase Woodycrest Inc. and 2442459 Ontario Inc., appealed a Master's decision that refused to discharge a certificate of pending litigation on one of two properties involved in an agreement of purchase and sale.

The appeal raised issues concerning contractual ambiguity in notice provisions, the uniqueness of the property for specific performance, and the quantifiability of damages.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's interpretation of the agreement or the exercise of discretion in maintaining the certificate on the Brock Street property.

During a jury trial for first-degree murder, the self-represented accused brought multiple applications for a mistrial, arguing the trial judge demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The accused alleged the judge called him a liar, favoured the Crown, withheld reasons on a Charter application, and made adverse evidentiary rulings.

The trial judge dismissed the applications, finding his actions were directed at controlling an ungovernable litigant who refused to abide by rulings, and that a fair-minded observer would not conclude there was bias.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the court held a pre-charge discussion to determine whether the lesser included offences of manslaughter and second-degree murder should be left to the jury.

The Crown argued that neither should be left, while the defence argued both should be available.

Applying the air of reality test, the court found no evidentiary foundation for manslaughter, as the forensic evidence indicated a targeted killing with no signs of a fight gone wrong.

However, the court found a gasping air of reality to second-degree murder, as a properly instructed jury could find the accused had the intent to kill but have a reasonable doubt regarding planning and deliberation.

Consequently, second-degree murder was left to the jury, but manslaughter was not.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the defence requested a jury instruction that the accused's after-the-fact conduct of attempting to collect the deceased's life insurance and death benefits had no probative value.

The Crown argued the conduct was relevant to the financial motive for the murder.

The court dismissed the defence's request, finding that the post-offence conduct was directly relevant to motive, which in turn was circumstantially relevant to the identity of the killers.

The court declined to give a 'no probative value' instruction.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application to stay the proceedings due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

However, the court found that the net delay was justified by the complexity of the case, which involved international extradition, voluminous disclosure, and significant defence-caused delays.

Furthermore, applying the transitional exceptional circumstances framework, the court determined that the delay was within the Morin guidelines and dismissed the application.

During a first-degree murder trial, the self-represented accused sought to introduce evidence of the deceased's alleged 'high-risk' lifestyle, including his use of gay dating and fetish websites, to suggest an unknown third party committed the murder.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the probative value of the evidence was extremely low and based on conjecture.

The court held that the prejudicial effect substantially outweighed any probative value, as the proposed evidence relied on discredited myths and stereotypes about gay men and would distract the jury from the real issues.

In a first-degree murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce ante-mortem statements made by the deceased to demonstrate his state of mind and the accused's motive to kill.

The defence objected to the viva voce evidence of five witnesses and a Facebook thread, arguing they failed the test of necessity and were not material to motive.

The court ruled the statements admissible, finding they fell under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and were not introduced for the truth of their contents.

The court also held the statements were material to establishing motive and their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect, subject to minor redactions.

The applicant, convicted of possessing child pornography, applied for bail pending appeal.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the appeal was frivolous.

The applicant argued that the trial judge erred in applying the W.D. test, failed to consider key evidence, and failed to consider whether guilt was the only logical conclusion in a circumstantial case.

The court rejected all three arguments, concluding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, considered the relevant evidence, and correctly applied the burden of proof.

Three offenders were convicted by a jury of kidnapping, extortion, and related offences committed with a firearm for the benefit of a street gang.

The victim, a fellow gang member, was kidnapped and threatened over a stolen gun.

The court sentenced the lead offender to 11 years, the secondary offender with a lengthy record to 9 years, and the third offender with better rehabilitation prospects to 6 years, all subject to half-time parole eligibility and credit for pre-sentence custody including lockdown time.

The accused, charged with first degree murder, brought an application to exclude sworn jurors from the courtroom during the challenge for cause process using rotating triers.

The Crown argued that recent appellate jurisprudence eliminated the trial judge's inherent jurisdiction to exclude sworn jurors.

The court held that it retained the common law discretion to exclude sworn jurors, as the Criminal Code is silent on the matter.

The court exercised its discretion to exclude the sworn jurors to prevent them from sitting idly in court for up to a week while the remainder of the jury was selected, which would diminish respect for the process.

In a first-degree murder trial, the applicants (accused) brought an application to adduce evidence of an alternate suspect.

The Crown moved to dismiss the application summarily.

The court dismissed the application on two grounds: first, for severe non-compliance with the Criminal Proceedings Rules regarding the filing of materials and factums; and second, because the proposed evidence lacked an 'air of reality' and failed to establish any sufficient connection, motive, means, or propensity linking the proposed third party to the murder.