Appeared as counsel in 39 cases (2008–2025)
15 total
Crown application to admit similar act evidence of a separate shooting dismissed due to insufficient similarities.
The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of a separate shooting in Sioux Lookout as similar act evidence on the issues of identity and possession in the accused's trial for a shooting in Brampton.
The Crown acknowledged the similarities between the shootings were not particularly strong but argued evidence from the accused's arrest provided a necessary link.
The court dismissed the application, finding the two shootings did not share sufficiently striking similarities to render coincidence objectively improbable, and the linkage evidence could not overcome the lack of similarity between the acts themselves.
Accused found guilty of impaired driving and refusal; excessive force during arrest warrants sentence reduction.
The accused was charged with impaired operation and refusing to comply with a breath demand after driving erratically and refusing to exit her vehicle during a traffic stop.
The court found the accused guilty of both offences, concluding her ability to drive was impaired by alcohol and she intentionally refused the breath demand.
The court dismissed the accused's s. 10(b) Charter application, finding she understood her right to counsel but chose not to exercise it.
However, the court found a s. 7 Charter breach because an officer used excessive force by yanking the accused out of her vehicle, causing her to fall onto the roadway.
The court declined to order a stay of proceedings or exclude evidence under s. 24(2), determining that a sentence reduction was the appropriate remedy for the breach.
Most remote testimony allowed under s. 714.1 despite credibility concerns.
On a Crown application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code, the court considered whether multiple prosecution witnesses in an attempted murder prosecution should testify by video during blended pretrial motions and trial proceedings.
The court held that exceptional circumstances are not required and applied the statutory factors, including witness location, travel burden, personal circumstances, suitability of the remote site, fair trial rights, and the seriousness of the offence.
Remote testimony was authorized for Sioux Lookout witnesses and two forensic witnesses, given the substantial travel burdens, parental leave circumstances, and adequate technology at the proposed OPP detachment location.
The application was denied as to one officer transferred to Bracebridge because the Crown failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary foundation regarding the proposed location and technology, and that witness did not face comparable travel hardship.
Late core disclosure justified a Jordan stay.
The applicant sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter in a relatively straightforward intimate partner violence prosecution where the principal disclosure issue concerned late production and translation of the complainant’s police statements.
The court held that the complainant’s station statement was core disclosure and should have been produced before the defence was required to set a trial date.
The court rejected the Crown’s position that the change of counsel materially caused the delay, finding only 15 days of defence delay and no exceptional circumstances.
With net delay of 591 days exceeding the Jordan ceiling, the court granted a stay.
In the alternative, the court held that even below the ceiling the applicant had shown sustained efforts to expedite the matter and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.
Charter application challenging search warrant dismissed; 47-day-old intercepted call not stale-dated for firearm possession.
The accused brought a facial challenge under s. 8 of the Charter to a search warrant that led to the discovery of a loaded firearm in her bedroom closet.
She argued the warrant could not have issued because the information in the ITO, derived from a single intercepted call 47 days prior, was stale-dated.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the passage of 47 days did not render the information stale given the nature of the item and the context of the intercepted call.
The court concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe the firearm would still be found at the residence.
Accused acquitted of cannabis export charges due to reasonable doubt raised by plausible tag-switching theory.
The accused was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of export after 24.5 kilograms of cannabis were found in two pieces of luggage bearing her name and flight information.
The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession.
The court found that the defence's alternative theory of 'tag switching' by airport workers was plausible and grounded in the evidence, including the lack of surveillance footage, forensic evidence, and investigation into the tracking devices found in the luggage.
As guilt was not the only reasonable inference, the accused was acquitted.
First-time offender sentenced to 120 days in jail for assaulting his wife and children.
The offender was convicted after trial of assaulting his son and daughter by repeatedly slapping them on the head for disciplinary reasons, and of assaulting his wife by cutting her neck with a potato peeler.
The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.
The court found that a discharge or conditional sentence would be contrary to the public interest given the multiple victims, the breach of trust, and the serious nature of the violence in the family home.
The offender was sentenced to a global term of 120 days in jail followed by 18 months of probation.
Accused found guilty of refusing breath sample after barricading himself in vehicle during traffic stop.
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.
Charter s. 11(b) application dismissed; net delay fell below 18-month ceiling after deducting defence delay.
The applicant, charged with intimate partner violence offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.
The total delay was 19.5 months, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
The court deducted defence delay for scheduling delays and apportioned delay for the applicant's unavailability for earlier offered trial dates, bringing the net delay to 15.2 months.
Finding the net delay below the presumptive ceiling and no grounds for a sub-ceiling stay, the court dismissed the application.
Above-ceiling delay warranted a stay despite defence-caused trial adjournment.
The accused brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of a summary criminal harassment charge after total delay reached 906 days.
The court held that although the accused caused the adjournment of the first trial by seeking replacement of court-appointed counsel, the ensuing delay to the second trial was not entirely defence delay because the Crown and court failed to take reasonable steps to minimize rescheduling delay.
Applying Jordan and the contextual apportionment approach in Hanan, the court deducted defence delay but still found net delay remained above the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
The Crown did not establish exceptional circumstances, and the charge was stayed.
Delay application dismissed; defence delay reduced net delay below the Jordan ceiling.
The accused sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter in a summary conviction intimate partner violence prosecution, arguing that delayed disclosure and the complainant's non-attendance at the second trial caused unconstitutional delay.
Applying the Jordan framework, the court deducted formal waivers and multiple periods of defence-caused delay arising from disclosure inaction, failure to conduct pretrials, unavailability for earlier trial dates, and an adjournment of the first trial requested by the defence.
The court held that the resulting net delay was 546 days, or 17.9 months, below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
Although the court rejected the Crown's submission that the witness's unexplained non-attendance constituted a discrete exceptional circumstance, it concluded the accused had not established a basis for a subceiling stay.
Below-ceiling delay did not justify a stay without sustained defence efforts.
The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a charge of theft over $5000, alleging unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter after multiple disclosure problems and two adjourned trial dates.
The court applied the Jordan framework and the Hanan contextual apportionment principle to determine which periods were defence delay and how ensuing delay after the adjournments should be allocated.
Although the court found the matter took markedly longer than it reasonably should have and criticized delayed core disclosure, the net delay was reduced to 17.5 months, below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.
The application failed because the applicant had not taken meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.
Father sentenced to 30 days intermittent jail for assaulting minor daughter in family home.
Sentencing for summary conviction assault of offender's minor daughter in the family home, involving multiple applications of force causing visible injuries, committed to prevent the child from intervening in a spousal dispute.
Court rejected defence request for conditional discharge, finding it contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the assault, statutory aggravating factors including breach of trust and victim under 18, significant victim impact, and absence of remorse or acceptance of responsibility.
Court also declined conditional sentence as inconsistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.
Intermittent jail sentence of 30 days imposed followed by 12 months probation, with DNA order.
Impaired driving charges stayed due to an 18.5-month net delay exceeding the Jordan ceiling.
The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.
The total delay from the date the Information was sworn to the anticipated end of trial was 909 days (29 months and 25 days), exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.
After deducting defence delay and apportioning delay arising from the rescheduling of the original trial date equally between the defence and Crown, the net delay was 562.5 days (18.5 months).
The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.
The application was granted and the charges were stayed.
The accused's section 11(b) Charter application was dismissed as the net delay fell well below the presumptive ceiling.
The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.
The trial was scheduled for December 9 and 10, 2025, nearly 23 months after arrest.
The accused argued that delayed core disclosure at the outset of the prosecution caused significant delays.
The Crown argued that once disclosure was made, the accused's actions led to adjournments of the first two trial dates due to scheduling errors and unavailability.
The court found that after deducting defence delay from the total delay, the net delay was 12.5 months, well below the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice summary conviction cases.
The application was dismissed.
