Robin McCourt

The defendants brought a motion for leave to cross-examine the affiant who obtained a search warrant, and a disclosure motion requesting all source documents for the investigation.

The Crown opposed both motions.

The court dismissed the disclosure motion as untimely and lacking focus, noting that disclosure had been deemed complete at a prior judicial pretrial and the parties had confirmed readiness to proceed.

The court also dismissed the motion for leave to cross-examine, finding that the defendants failed to identify any material misrepresentations, errors, or omissions in the Information to Obtain that would undermine the grounds for issuance of the warrant.

The court emphasized that cross-examination is only permitted in narrow circumstances where the defendant demonstrates a basis for believing the cross-examination will elicit evidence tending to discredit a precondition for the authorization.

The accused was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle and five firearms-related offences after police discovered a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition in a minivan he was driving.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty of possession of stolen property but guilty of all firearms offences.

The key issues were whether the minivan was stolen (turning on the credibility of the registered owner whose testimony contained numerous inconsistencies) and whether the sawed-off shotgun constituted a "firearm" under the Criminal Code despite having a detached forearm and being in poor condition.

The accused, Jessica Tadam, was charged with assault and uttering a threat after an altercation with a Walmart asset protection investigator, Mark Burai.

Burai observed Tadam shoplifting and attempted to recover the merchandise.

Tadam claimed self-defence, alleging Burai assaulted her.

The court found Burai to be a credible witness and Tadam's testimony implausible.

The court determined that Tadam's actions were not for self-defence but to evade apprehension for theft.

The court also held that the self-defence exclusion under s. 34(3) of the Criminal Code applied, as Burai was authorized by law to use force to prevent the theft, and Tadam did not reasonably believe he was acting unlawfully.

Even if s. 34(3) did not apply, the court found Tadam's response disproportionate and her motive not genuinely defensive.

Tadam was found guilty of both assault and uttering a threat.

The accused, Hemraj Lakhan, was charged with sexual assault and failure to comply with a probation order.

The central issue at trial was whether the complainant, K.L., consented to the sexual touching.

The court found K.L. to be a credible witness but had significant concerns about the reliability of her testimony due to memory issues, admitted drug use around the time of the incident, and inconsistent/contradictory statements during cross-examination, including agreeing that her initial claim of non-consent was "make believe" and that she had initiated sex.

Despite corroborating evidence of sexual contact (DNA) and the complainant's distraught post-event demeanour, the court determined that the Crown failed to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of both charges.

Justin Thombs was convicted of five counts of possession for the purposes of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of stolen license plates.

The drugs seized included significant quantities of fentanyl (54.35g), methamphetamine, hydromorphone, oxycodone, and MDMA, with an estimated street value of $8,326 to $15,406.

The Crown sought a 9-year penitentiary term, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for mid-to-high level dealers, particularly those trafficking fentanyl.

The defence sought a 3-4 year term, characterizing the client as a low-to-mid level dealer with rehabilitation prospects.

The court found several aggravating factors, including the offender's criminal record with prior trafficking convictions, the nature and quantity of the drugs (especially fentanyl), and the use of stolen license plates to facilitate criminal activity.

Mitigating factors included a history of employment, family support, engagement in rehabilitative programming while in detention, and an acknowledgment of responsibility.

The court gave minimal weight to the offender's addiction as a mitigating factor, finding no causal connection to his trafficking.

A global sentence of 9 years was imposed, with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a remaining term of 6 years, 7.5 months.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA sample, and forfeiture of seized items were also issued.

The accused, Justin Thombs, brought a mid-trial Charter application under s. 8, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure of his vehicle.

The defence argued that new information regarding the grounds for the search emerged during the arresting officer's testimony, which was not disclosed pre-trial.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing it was untimely and lacked merit.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was not brought in a timely fashion and that the police had lawful grounds for the search incident to arrest, and that any potential breach regarding specific items would likely not warrant exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown applied to amend the indictment to conform with the evidence by changing the dates on three counts (assault and mischief) against the respondent.

The respondent opposed, arguing prejudice.

The court considered Section 601 of the Criminal Code, noting that time is not an essential element of the offences and no alibi defence was raised.

The court found that the respondent was not prejudiced as the defence theory, based on the complainant's credibility and motive to fabricate, was not impacted by the proposed amendments, and cross-examination was not temporally restricted.

The Crown's application was granted.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on charges including possession of methamphetamine for trafficking and probation breaches.

The court considered a new surety and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as material changes in circumstances, allowing for a de novo review.

Despite the applicant's extensive criminal record and the seriousness of the charges, the court granted judicial interim release.

It found that the proposed release plan, combined with the heightened health risks of incarceration during the pandemic, sufficiently addressed the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention, particularly for a non-violent offender.