Robert F. Goldstein

The Crown appealed an acquittal on an “over 80” impaired driving charge, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable under the Criminal Code presumption of identity.

The trial judge had identified an unexplained 20‑minute delay between arrival at the police station and the commencement of the booking process and concluded the Crown had not proven the requirement beyond a reasonable doubt.

On appeal, the court held that whether the Crown had provided sufficient evidence to establish the “as soon as practicable” requirement was primarily a factual determination.

Applying the deferential standard of review for factual findings, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s reasoning.

The acquittal was therefore upheld and the Crown appeal dismissed.

The accused appealed summary conviction findings of guilt for impaired driving and refusal to provide a breath sample following a motor vehicle collision.

The primary ground of appeal alleged a breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that police failed to facilitate access to counsel of choice.

The appeal court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the police acted reasonably and in good faith by providing access to duty counsel, particularly where the accused did not clearly identify a specific lawyer or object to speaking with duty counsel.

Additional Charter arguments under ss. 7 and 8 were rejected, including a claim relating to alleged disclosure issues and an argument about unlawful seizure where no evidence had actually been seized.

The court concluded that the trial judge properly dismissed the Charter motions and that the convictions should stand.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an encounter with a 13‑year‑old complainant whom he met through an online dating website.

The accused denied that sexual activity occurred and asserted the parties only briefly met in a park.

Applying the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), the court rejected the accused’s evidence and found it did not raise a reasonable doubt.

Despite inconsistencies on peripheral matters, the court found the complainant credible and reliable, noting her lack of motive to fabricate and corroboration from a friend regarding subsequent events.

The court concluded that sexual intercourse occurred when the complainant was 13 and the accused was 25, proving both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was arrested for robbery and obstruct police.

After being convicted of obstruct police, he brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings, alleging he was denied his right to counsel and gratuitously beaten by police in the fingerprint room.

The court found the s. 10(b) issue moot as the Crown did not seek to adduce the accused's statements.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, finding the accused's allegations of police brutality lacked credibility, were unsupported by physical evidence, and violated the rule in Browne v. Dunn as they were never put to the police officers during cross-examination.

Following an application seeking a declaration that a franchise agreement was of no force or effect and claiming damages, the court determined that credibility issues prevented resolution on an application record and converted the proceeding into an action.

The respondents sought costs on the basis that they were the successful parties on the application.

The applicant argued that the proceeding resolved no substantive issues and that costs should be determined by the trial judge.

The court held that neither party achieved success on the application and that the merits remained to be determined at trial.

Costs were therefore left to the discretion of the trial judge.

The offender was convicted by a jury of three counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and three counts of failing to remain at the scene of an accident following a road rage incident on Highway 401.

The collision caused the other vehicle to roll over, resulting in catastrophic injuries to the other driver and serious injuries to two passengers.

The court weighed the offender's terrible driving record and the egregious nature of the offence against his deteriorating physical and mental health due to Huntington's disease.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' incarceration, a 10-year driving prohibition, and ordered to provide a DNA sample.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a fraud action arising from an automobile lease transaction.

The plaintiffs alleged that signatures on credit applications associated with the lease were forged and sought substantial damages for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The court held that the expert handwriting report relied upon by the plaintiffs was inadmissible because it was appended to another affidavit and lacked a proper evidentiary foundation.

Even if forgery were assumed, the plaintiffs failed to establish damages and the claim was also found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

Applying the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the action.

The applicant, sought for extradition to the United States on drug trafficking charges, applied for further disclosure of communications between Canadian and American authorities regarding efforts to locate her.

She argued that the requesting state lied about its efforts to find her and that the seven-year pre-extradition delay constituted an abuse of process.

The court dismissed the application, finding no air of reality to the claims of prejudice from delay or deliberate deception by the requesting state that would justify ordering disclosure at the committal stage.

Supplementary endorsement addressing unresolved questions arising from a refusals and undertakings motion following examinations for discovery in a civil action.

The court clarified and completed earlier rulings by issuing directions regarding specific questions and document production obligations.

The respondent was ordered to provide various financial records, identification details, correspondence with third parties, and explanations of efforts to obtain certain documents within specified timelines.

Some requests were declined.

The endorsement also confirmed that any ordered production of correspondence excludes solicitor‑client privileged material.

Sentencing decision following convictions for numerous fraud‑related offences including theft over $5000, possession of property obtained by crime, extortion, intimidation, possession of devices for forging credit cards, fraudulent possession and use of credit card data, and forgery.

Police discovered sophisticated equipment used to manufacture fraudulent credit cards and identification, as well as extensive stolen credit card data.

The offender had a lengthy criminal record involving similar offences and prior custodial sentences, including a sentence in the United States.

The court emphasized the seriousness of organized credit card fraud and the importance of deterrence, while acknowledging limited prospects for rehabilitation.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence.

The applicant sought to enforce letters rogatory issued by a United States District Court compelling Ontario non-parties to provide testimony and documents for use in U.S. antitrust class actions alleging polyurethane foam price‑fixing.

The court applied the established criteria governing enforcement of foreign letters rogatory, including relevance, necessity, availability of evidence elsewhere, public policy concerns, specificity, and burden.

The court found the criteria satisfied for two respondents and held that enforcement would not violate Canadian sovereignty or the respondents’ Charter protections against self‑incrimination.

The application was granted with conditions requiring examinations to proceed under Ontario procedural rules and subject to Charter and Evidence Act protections, while the application against a third respondent was dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary basis.

During a jury trial for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, the accused brought a Corbett application seeking to exclude his criminal record from being used in cross-examination should he testify.

The court considered the Corbett factors including the nature, similarity, and remoteness of prior convictions and the impact on trial fairness.

The judge held that the adult convictions could be used in cross-examination because the case turned largely on credibility and excluding the record would create a misleading impression for the jury.

However, the accused’s youth conviction was excluded due to its remoteness and the prejudicial impact associated with youth offences.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence seized during the execution of search warrants at a storage locker and his residence.

Police searching for stolen property discovered equipment used to manufacture fraudulent credit cards and seized it under s. 489(1) of the Criminal Code and the common law plain view doctrine.

The court held that large machines and items visible in an open drawer were lawfully seized because they gave rise to reasonable grounds to believe an offence had occurred.

However, the police exceeded their authority by searching closed drawers and cupboards without obtaining a further warrant, resulting in a breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the s. 24(2) test from Grant, the court concluded the breach was at the lower end of seriousness and the real evidence should not be excluded.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude a hunting rifle seized during execution of a telewarrant for proceeds of crime.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained misleading statements regarding the existence of strict surveillance, which was critical to establishing reasonable grounds for the warrant.

After excising the misleading information, the remaining record could not support issuance of the warrant.

The police also searched a locked music shed that was not part of the “dwelling house” described in the warrant and entered it by battering ram despite a key being available.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant, the court held that the combined Charter breaches warranted exclusion of the firearm evidence.

The accused applied for a subpoena requiring police to produce a confidential informant file following the dismissal of a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence seized under a search warrant.

The accused argued that, under Step 6 of the Garofoli procedure, the trial judge should review the informant file to ensure police compliance with informant handling procedures and the reliability of information provided to obtain the warrant.

The court held that disclosure or judicial review of such material requires a threshold showing that the material could reasonably assist the defence, and mere speculation or a desire to verify police conduct is insufficient.

The judge rejected the argument that Step 6 transforms the court into an inquisitorial investigator and emphasized the continued primacy of the adversarial system and the strength of informer privilege.

The application for a subpoena and judicial review of the informant file was dismissed.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered 25.3 grams of crack cocaine hidden in his clothing following arrest.

At sentencing, the court rejected the offender’s claim that the drugs were for personal use, finding him to be a commercial trafficker based on the quantity of drugs, the organization of cash seized, and expert evidence regarding trafficking practices.

The court considered whether a conditional sentence was appropriate given that the offence pre‑dated legislative amendments restricting such sentences.

Applying the principles of deterrence and denunciation, the court found a conditional sentence inconsistent with the purposes of sentencing.

A custodial sentence was imposed together with probation and ancillary orders including forfeiture of proceeds of crime.

Following a partially successful Rule 21 motion to strike pleadings, the moving defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The responding plaintiffs argued costs should be in the cause due to mixed success and that the amount sought was excessive.

The court applied the discretionary principles governing costs under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although success was mixed, the defendants achieved significant success by striking entire causes of action.

The court awarded reduced partial indemnity costs reflecting that the defendants were not entirely successful.

Following a jury verdict awarding damages for defamation, the judgment creditor examined the debtor in aid of execution and brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and undertakings concerning the debtor’s financial affairs.

Many questions sought information relating to the bank accounts and financial affairs of the debtor’s companion, a non‑party.

The court held that absent evidence of fraudulent conveyance or authority over the non‑party’s accounts, it would be inappropriate to compel production of her financial information.

However, the debtor was required to disclose information directly within his knowledge or control, including particulars of transfers of funds, credit card information in his name, client identities relevant to potential income, and details of his travel.

The motion was granted in part and dismissed in part, with compliance required within sixty days.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of drugs and cash seized from his home pursuant to a Controlled Drugs and Substances Act search warrant, alleging the Information to Obtain failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds and contained misleading information.

The court applied Step 6 of the Garofoli process to review redacted informant material and determine whether the excised information could support the warrant.

After reviewing the unredacted ITO and a judicial summary, the court found the informant’s tip compelling, credible, and sufficiently corroborated by police investigation.

Although certain statements in the ITO were misleading, they did not undermine the overall basis for the warrant once excised.

The court concluded there was no breach of s. 8 of the Charter and that, in any event, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The plaintiff successfully sued the defendant for defamation and obtained an injunction prohibiting the defendant from communicating about him.

The defendant breached the injunction by communicating with a Member of Parliament, claiming it was an act of conscience, and was found in civil contempt.

The court sentenced the defendant to a 90-day conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by 18 months' probation and 200 hours of community service, finding that jail was not necessary.

The defendant was also ordered to pay substantial indemnity costs of $24,377.41.