Robert F. Goldstein

The person sought in an extradition proceeding brought two pre-hearing applications.

First, he sought discharge, arguing the Minister of Justice failed to sign the Authority to Proceed within the strict timelines of the Extradition Act.

Second, he sought disclosure of materials related to the Minister's decision to substitute a new Authority to Proceed and materials from a related Toronto Police Service investigation.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that the Authority to Proceed was signed within the 90-day statutory limit.

The court also held that there was no air of reality to the abuse of process claim regarding the substituted Authority to Proceed, and that the person sought was not entitled to disclosure of the Canadian police investigation because the requesting state did not rely on Canadian-gathered evidence.

The applicant, sought by the United States for money laundering and operating an un-licenced money transfer business, applied for bail pending extradition.

The applicant bore the onus under s. 515(6)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

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

The court found the applicant posed a significant flight risk, had a history of using false documents, and proposed an inadequate release plan with unsuitable sureties and insufficient supervision to prevent reoffending.

The accused appeared for a 90-day bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He faced multiple sets of charges, primarily relating to committing indecent acts by masturbating in public, including in the presence of children, as well as breaching probation and bail conditions.

The accused had a significant criminal record and severe mental health issues, with a psychiatric assessment indicating a moderate-high risk of violent and sexual recidivism.

The court found that while the accused required mental health treatment, his escalating behaviour and the lack of a viable supervision plan meant his continued detention was necessary for the protection and safety of the public under the secondary ground.

The accused's detention was ordered to continue.

The accused, charged with firearms trafficking, sought a bail review after being detained on the tertiary ground.

The reviewing judge found no error of law in the original bail judge's decision but concluded that a material change in circumstances had occurred.

The accused presented a new release plan involving house arrest, two suitable sureties, and an ankle monitor.

The court held that this new plan was sufficient to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and ordered the accused's release.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a third-party records application seeking police records relating to an alleged co-party to advance a third-party suspect defence.

The court held that occurrence and arrest reports from the investigating agency (Toronto Police) where the alleged co-party is a suspect or accused are first-party disclosure under Stinchcombe.

Records from a non-investigating agency (Niagara Regional Police) met the 'likely relevant' threshold under O'Connor and were ordered produced to the court for review.

The Attorney General of Canada applied under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to send a cell phone and forensic search results to the United States for a murder investigation.

The respondent, who was arrested in Canada for an immigration violation, argued that his Charter rights were breached because the search exceeded the warrant's time limit and scope, and he was not properly informed of his right to counsel.

The court found no breach regarding the timing of the search or the right to counsel, but held that extracting the web browser history violated s. 8 of the Charter as the warrant was limited to communications.

The court allowed the application in part, ordering the phone and communications to be sent, but excluding the web browser history.

The Crown brought an application to introduce flyers distributed by the accused in Saskatchewan in 2000 and 2001 as evidence of motive in a hate speech trial.

In an addendum to previous reasons, the court held that while two of the flyers were capable of showing animus towards gay people, their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

The Crown's application to introduce the Saskatchewan flyers was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of second-degree murder for the brutal beating of an 82-year-old woman during a home invasion.

The Crown sought 18 years of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years, citing the offender's Aboriginal background, mental illness, and the jury's recommendation.

The court found the offender posed a significant danger and set the base parole ineligibility at 18 years.

However, the court found that the 27 months the offender spent in administrative segregation constituted a gross violation of his s. 12 Charter rights against cruel and unusual treatment.

As a remedy, the court reduced the parole ineligibility period by 27 months, resulting in a final period of 15 years and 9 months.

The offender, a bar manager, was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism after luring an employee into a basement office, sexually assaulting her, and surreptitiously filming the assault.

The court found the predatory nature of the offence, the breach of trust, and the voyeuristic purpose to be highly aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 18 months imprisonment, followed by three years of probation, along with DNA, weapons prohibition, and sex offender registry orders.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown brought an application to admit expert evidence regarding street gangs, specifically the rivalry between 'C3' and the 'Scarlettwood Crips'.

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert to provide context and establish motive for the seemingly random shooting of an unarmed man.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial and the officer was not properly qualified.

The court allowed the application, finding the evidence was logically relevant to motive, necessary to assist the jury in understanding the context of the shooting, and that the officer was qualified.

The court ruled that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to specific exclusions of certain highly prejudicial videos and appropriate jury instructions.

The defendant, Enzo Dario De Jesus Carrasco, was charged with sexual assault, voyeurism, and transmitting an intimate image.

The court found the defendant's testimony to be untruthful and inconsistent with text messages.

The complainant's evidence, despite some inconsistencies, was found credible and consistent with corroborating text messages.

The court convicted the defendant of sexual assault and voyeurism, finding that the touching was sexual, non-consensual, and that the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the basement office where she was filmed.

The defendant was acquitted of transmitting an intimate image due to reasonable doubt regarding criminal intent, based on a text message indicating the image was sent by mistake.

The Crown applied for an order to retain seized material for an additional year in a complex criminal investigation involving Fortress Real Capital Inc. and related entities.

The investigation, initiated in 2018, concerned allegations of investor fraud through misrepresentation of property values and investment eligibility.

The court granted the application, finding the investigation to be complex due to the large volume of electronic and hard copy material, the need for professional assistance (computer experts, accountants), and significant delays caused by extensive solicitor-client privilege claims over seized documents.

The court emphasized that while asserting privilege is legitimate, it contributed to the complexity and delay, justifying further detention of the material until June 22, 2021.

The accused, a First Nations man charged with second-degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown conceded the primary ground but opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the strength of the case, the gravity of the offence, and the accused's poor attitude during his police interview.

The court found the proposed sureties, the accused's uncle and aunt, were adequate to supervise him under strict house arrest conditions.

Applying the Gladue factors and the St. Cloud framework, the court concluded that detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with strict conditions including electronic monitoring via cameras.

Mohammed Hakimzadah was convicted of five counts of counselling the commission of offences not committed, including two counts of counselling murder (his wife and her family law lawyer), counselling trafficking cocaine, counselling transferring a firearm, and counselling public mischief.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the nature of the offences, the targeting of a justice system participant (the lawyer), and the psychological harm to the victims.

Mitigating factors included his first offender status, prior pro-social life, and deteriorating health in custody.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 9 years, with pre-sentence credit for 6 years, resulting in a further 3 years of incarceration.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year firearms prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture, and a non-communication order with his wife and daughters during his sentence.

Mr. Raza, who fled the United States after pleading guilty to identity theft and aggravated identity theft, sought bail in Canada on an Extradition Act proceeding.

He argued that a release plan mitigated flight risk and cited health issues, including a vulnerable immune system, making him susceptible to Covid-19.

The court dismissed the bail application, finding an overwhelming flight risk due to his prior escape, sophisticated planning, and lack of ties in Canada.

The proposed sureties were deemed inadequate.

While acknowledging Covid-19 as a factor, the court found insufficient evidence of Mr. Raza's particular vulnerability or that incarceration posed a higher risk than release, especially given measures taken by correctional institutions.

Detention was also deemed necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and the strength of the prosecution's case.

The defendant sought to exclude evidence (a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition) seized under a search warrant, arguing the warrant was invalid due to a breach of his s. 7 Charter rights (loss of surveillance video) and insufficient grounds.

The court found a s. 7 Charter breach due to unacceptable police negligence in losing the video, remedying it by excising a subjective observation from the Information To Obtain (ITO).

However, the court determined that even with the excision, there were sufficient credible and corroborated grounds from a confidential informant and police surveillance for the justice of the peace to issue the warrant for the defendant's associated residence.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

In a criminal trial for wilfully promoting hatred, the Crown sought to introduce various blog posts and internet articles as "proposed motive evidence" to demonstrate the accused's animus towards gay people.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the proposed evidence was not capable of demonstrating the intense and extreme hatred required for motive.

The court ruled that the prejudicial effect of admitting such evidence, which risked distracting the jury with debates over the accused's political and religious views rather than the elements of the offence, significantly outweighed its limited probative value.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for supplying inferior limestone, alleging breach of contract.

The key issue in the lawsuit was the nature of the limestone, requiring an inspection by the defendants' expert.

Despite multiple court orders from a Master and a Superior Court judge, and the dismissal of frivolous appeals, the plaintiffs repeatedly obstructed the defendants' attempts to conduct the necessary inspection and failed to pay costs orders.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action due to the plaintiffs' persistent non-compliance with interlocutory orders and abuse of process.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the action under Rule 60.12(b), finding that the plaintiffs had no intention of permitting the essential inspection and were abusing the court's process.

The appellant, Toronto Hydro, appealed a Master's decision granting the respondent leave to amend a third-party claim to add Toronto Hydro as a party after the apparent expiry of the limitation period.

The underlying action involved a motor vehicle collision at an intersection where the traffic lights were not functioning due to a power outage.

The appellant argued the Master erred in applying the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act and misapprehended evidence regarding the respondent's due diligence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Master's interpretation of the law and holding that her factual findings on discoverability were owed deference and supported by the evidence.

Antonio Sampogna was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including trafficking a non-restricted firearm and possession of restricted and prohibited firearms without valid certificates.

Despite being a 57-year-old first offender with a pro-social background, the court emphasized the paramount importance of general deterrence and denunciation due to the serious nature of firearms offences.

The Crown sought a sentence in the range of 6-7 years, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of 3-6 months.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, finding it inappropriate given the gravity of the offences and the need to send a clear message regarding illegal firearms.

A global sentence of five years in penitentiary was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody and house arrest.