Rohan Michael Robinson

The appellant filed a complaint against a development charge imposed by the City of Toronto.

At the hearing, counsel advised the Tribunal that the matter would likely be resolved and was scheduled to go before City Council.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a status update after the Council meeting and noted that a three-day hearing would be required if a settlement was not reached.

Howard Burke and Devon Dinall were convicted by a jury of drug-related offences (cocaine trafficking) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court determined the factual basis for sentencing, rejecting the defence's argument that marihuana trafficking was also involved.

Howard Burke, a repeat offender, was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for trafficking 2.320 kg of cocaine and concurrent three years for possession of $76,880 in proceeds.

Devon Dinall, a mid-level trafficker, was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment for conspiracy to traffic 306g of cocaine, concurrent three and a half years for trafficking, and concurrent one year for possession of $15,560 in proceeds.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, considering aggravating factors like the volume of drugs and prior records, and mitigating factors like employment and personal challenges.

The applicant, charged with drug trafficking offences following a mass arrest operation, brought a Charter application alleging breaches of her ss. 7, 10(b), and 12 rights.

She claimed excessive force upon arrest, inhumane treatment during a lengthy wait in a police cruiser, and an unlawful strip search.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant's testimony regarding pain and suffering to be fabricated and contradicted by video evidence.

The court held that the police conduct was reasonable under the circumstances of the mass arrests, and the strip search was justified as the applicant was entering the prison population.

Kimo David was convicted by a jury of five firearm-related offenses and subsequently found guilty of five additional firearm and breach of order offenses.

The court considered aggravating factors including his extensive criminal record, prior firearm convictions, the public nature of the offense, and his post-arrest conduct.

Mitigating factors were limited to his relative youth.

The court rejected the "jump principle" given his limited prospects for rehabilitation.

Sentences for the main firearm offenses were concurrent, while breaches of separate prohibition orders were consecutive.

A global sentence of 8 years was imposed, with credit for presentence custody.

The court addressed whether a mandatory minimum sentence of three years imprisonment for trafficking a firearm remained operative following Superior Court decisions declaring the provision unconstitutional.

The court held that a declaration of invalidity made by the Superior Court of Justice binds the Ontario Court of Justice and that the Crown must either appeal such a declaration or accept its effect.

The court concluded that the mandatory minimum sentence for conspiracy to traffic a firearm no longer applies.

The accused brought a pre-trial application to exclude evidence of a loaded handgun and drugs found in his vehicle, alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The police had observed the accused engage in a suspected hand-to-hand drug transaction in a parking lot and subsequently blocked his vehicle to investigate.

The court found that the detention was based on reasonable suspicion and not arbitrary, but the police violated ss. 10(a) and 10(b) by failing to promptly advise the accused of the reasons for his detention and his right to counsel.

The subsequent search of the vehicle was found to be a lawful search incident to arrest.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework, the court admitted the physical evidence (firearm and drugs) due to its high reliability and importance to the truth-seeking function, but excluded a brief statement made by the accused prior to being advised of his rights.

The accused was convicted after trial on 16 counts of fraud arising from his involvement in billing practices at his employer, Attersley Tire, which fraudulently invoiced Highland Trucking for promotional gifts totaling $17,353.00.

The court found that while the accused participated in the scheme, the fraud was orchestrated and encouraged by Attersley Tire and its management.

The accused received only indirect benefits through job retention.

Despite the seriousness of the offences, the court imposed a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that general deterrence carried less weight than the accused's personal circumstances, positive pre-sentence report, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court rejected restitution as a probation term given that the victim company showed no interest in recovery and the funds remained with Attersley Tire.

The defendant was charged with seven counts relating to possession of a restricted firearm and ammunition found in a speaker box during a search warrant execution at his Toronto residence on October 27, 2013.

The Crown alleged the defendant had knowledge, custody, and control of the firearm.

The defendant raised an alternate suspect defense, arguing his younger brother M.E. had placed the gun in the speaker without his knowledge or consent.

The trial judge found that while the Crown's circumstantial evidence was substantial, the defense evidence established an air of reality to the third-party suspect theory.

The judge concluded that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The accused was charged with robbery, assault causing bodily harm, and several firearms offences after attacking a drug dealer and stealing a bag of marijuana.

The accused pleaded guilty to the robbery and assault but contested the firearms charges, claiming he found the gun inside the stolen bag and did not bring it to the robbery.

Undercover police officers witnessed the robbery and testified that the accused used a handgun to pistol-whip the victim.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, applying the W.(D.) framework, and accepted the officers' evidence.

The court also found that although the seized handgun had a defective firing pin, it met the definition of a firearm because it could be readily adapted for use within a reasonable time.

The accused was found guilty of the firearms offences.

The accused was convicted of internet luring of a virtual 15-year-old boy contrary to s. 172 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 90 days imprisonment.

The court found the accused to be a first offender on the lower end of the sentencing continuum.

However, the court identified a serious Charter violation: the police unlawfully disseminated the accused's HIV status in a media release without statutory authority or consideration of constitutional rights.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day followed by three years of probation as a remedy for the Charter breach while maintaining denunciation and deterrence of the underlying offence.

The accused was charged with inviting sexual touching by means of telecommunication with a person believed to be under sixteen, contrary to section 172.1(b) of the Criminal Code, and attempt aggravated sexual assault.

The Crown alleged the accused solicited sexual contact with a minor through an online advertisement and subsequent communications with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings on grounds of entrapment and Charter breach.

The court found no entrapment, as the police investigation was based on reasonable suspicion and the accused initiated all suggestions to meet.

However, the court found a Charter breach under section 7 when police unlawfully disclosed the accused's HIV status in a media release without proper authorization under provincial privacy legislation.

Despite the breach, the court declined to grant a stay, finding alternative remedies sufficient to preserve the integrity of the justice system.

The accused was convicted on the luring charge.

Following an encounter in apartment building elevators and hallways, the accused was tried on charges of robbery, aggravated sexual assault by wounding, aggravated assault by wounding, and forcible confinement.

The court held the taking of the complainant's phone did not involve more than incidental contact and therefore did not amount to robbery, but did constitute theft.

Applying the objective sexual-assault analysis, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the stairwell interaction established a sexual or carnal context, and it rejected the aggravated sexual assault charge.

The facial bite injuries did not amount to wounding in law, but supported a conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown also failed to prove forcible confinement beyond a reasonable doubt.

Two accused were charged with sexual assault and gang sexual assault following allegations that the complainant was sexually assaulted by multiple men in an apartment over approximately thirty-one hours.

The trial judge found the complainant’s evidence unreliable regarding how she arrived at the apartment but accepted core aspects of her testimony concerning non-consensual sexual activity, supported by DNA evidence and contemporaneous reporting.

The court concluded that one accused engaged in multiple acts of non-consensual sexual intercourse and other sexual activity with the complainant and rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.

The second accused was found to have touched the complainant’s breast in a sexual manner without consent based on DNA evidence and credibility findings.

However, the Crown failed to prove that the accused were parties to each other’s assaults for the purpose of the gang sexual assault charges.

The defendant, Coventry Connections Inc., brought a motion under Rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to withdraw an admission in its statement of defence that the co-defendant taxi driver was its employee.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

Applying the three-part test from Antipas v. Coroneos, the Master found that the admission was inadvertent and that its withdrawal would not result in any non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

The motion was granted, allowing the defendant to amend its pleading to reflect the discovery evidence that the driver was an independent owner and operator.

Following a jury trial, the offender was convicted of sexual assault, common assault, and uttering a death threat against an intimate partner.

The offences involved forced vaginal intercourse accompanied by violence, physical assault during a dispute, and a later threat to kill the complainant.

The court considered aggravating factors including the violent nature of the sexual assault, the intimate relationship context, the victim’s vulnerability due to serious illness, and prior foreign convictions for sexual offences entered on a plea of nolo contendere.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

A total sentence of four years’ imprisonment was ordered along with ancillary orders including DNA collection, a weapons prohibition, and registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to withdraw an admission contained in its statement of defence acknowledging that a taxi driver involved in a collision was its employee.

The court applied the three‑part test governing withdrawal of admissions in pleadings: whether the amendment raises a triable issue, whether the admission was inadvertent, and whether the withdrawal would cause non‑compensable prejudice.

The court accepted affidavit evidence explaining that the admission resulted from inadvertence and that discovery evidence suggested the driver was actually the owner and operator of the vehicle.

The court also found no real prejudice to the plaintiff, rejecting arguments that potential loss of access to higher insurance limits constituted prejudice.

Leave to withdraw the admission was granted and costs were reserved.

The applicant, an unrepresented accused charged with robbery, aggravated assault, and uttering threats, sought the appointment of amicus curiae to represent his interests at a preliminary inquiry.

The applicant's Legal Aid certificate was denied after his previous counsel withdrew due to a conflict of interest.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae and whether such an appointment was necessary to prevent a failure of justice.

The court found that the Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae in limited circumstances where necessary to prevent a failure of justice, and that the imminent preliminary inquiry with one co-accused in custody for eight months necessitated the appointment.

The court appointed counsel as amicus curiae at a rate of $180 per hour.