Ronald Ka-Chun Chu

The accused, B.B., was charged with multiple sexual offences against his biological daughter, including sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, sexual interference, confinement, and administering a noxious thing.

The complainant, a child, gave two videotaped statements and testified at trial, but her evidence was inconsistent and lacked present memory of many details.

The court found significant frailties and inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, as well as a lack of corroboration.

The accused’s testimony was found to be measured and reasonable.

The court concluded that the Crown had not proven the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

The court granted the applicant’s Charter application, finding that the police used their Highway Traffic Act powers as a pretext to stop the applicant’s vehicle to investigate a possible drug transaction, resulting in arbitrary detention contrary to section 9.

The subsequent search and seizure of drugs and a firearm were not justified under the plain view doctrine and violated section 8.

The applicant’s right to counsel under section 10(b) was also breached due to an unreasonable delay in facilitating access to duty counsel.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), concluding that admitting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The applicants, Joel Gomes and Stacey Downey, sought a stay of charges for multiple masked robberies due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from information sworn to anticipated trial end was 23 months and 16 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the significant delay was attributable to the Crown's failure to provide essential disclosure, including police notes of alleged confessions and timely DNA analysis results, which were crucial for the defence to make an informed election of trial mode.

The Crown's arguments of defence delay and case complexity were rejected, as the Crown failed to act diligently or proactively to minimize the delay.

The application was granted, and the charges against both accused were stayed.

This judgment follows a Zoom trial for sexual assault under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown alleged the accused sexually assaulted the complainant between September and October 2019.

Key evidence included the complainant's video statement and text message screenshots, which contained the accused's apologies.

The defence argued these apologies were not admissions of guilt but attempts to placate the complainant.

The court found the accused's explanations for his apologies incredible, accepted the complainant's testimony despite minor inconsistencies, and convicted the accused, finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit photographs of the defendant, Jordan O’Maly, taken at police stations on matters unrelated to the current charges.

The evidence included stills showing the defendant wearing specific clothing (dark athletic jacket with three stripes, white belt with circular metallic buckle) and having a bandaged hand shortly after the alleged stabbing, and later photographs of scars on his hands.

The court applied the probative value versus prejudicial effect test, finding the evidence highly probative for identification due to the unique combination of clothing and hand injuries, which corroborated other circumstantial evidence like blood DNA and gas station video.

The court determined that any prejudicial effect arising from the defendant's association with police could be mitigated through appropriate limiting instructions to the jury or by editing the evidence.

The motion to admit the evidence was granted.

The offender was convicted of two counts of trafficking in persons, two counts of procuring, and one count of receiving a material benefit related to two young women.

The court determined a proportionate sentence, addressed the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence for trafficking in persons under section 279.01(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, and considered enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The mandatory minimum was found not grossly disproportionate for the offender but was for a reasonable hypothetical offender, thus violating section 12 of the Charter and not saved by section 1.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight years, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

A youth was charged with robbery and assault arising from a violent attack on a complainant in Toronto.

The Crown's case relied on identification evidence from video surveillance footage.

Two separate identifications were made by different witnesses: one identifying another young person (MR) and another identifying the accused (JB).

The court found both identifications to be credible but subject to significant reliability concerns.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court determined that the conflicting identification evidence created reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt and acquitted on all charges.

The defendant was convicted of assault with a weapon and threatening death following a knife attack in a restaurant, and assault on a police officer.

The trial judge had previously stayed all charges except assault with a weapon due to police brutality during arrest.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 90 days jail while the defence sought an absolute discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, finding that a nine-month conditional sentence was appropriate when accounting for the Charter breach involving excessive police force, pre-trial detention, and lengthy bail conditions.

Two young persons were charged with robbery and assault arising from an incident in a mall parking lot.

The defendant J.G.B. admitted to punching the complainant multiple times but claimed self-defence.

The court found that while there was an air of reality to the self-defence claim, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

The defendant had sought out the complainant with associates to confront him over an alleged prior wrong, initiated the physical confrontation, and used disproportionate force.

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The robbery charges were dismissed as the Crown could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt which defendant took the phone or that theft was the purpose of the attack.