Ron Krueger

The defendant was convicted of intimidation of a justice system participant and uttering threats after posting images and threats on Instagram revealing the identity of an undercover police officer who was scheduled to testify against him.

The Crown sought a sentence of 2.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years plus a day.

The court sentenced the defendant to 2.5 years concurrent on each count, finding the offences struck at the heart of the justice system.

With enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the sentence amounted to time served.

A 10-year weapons prohibition was also ordered.

The defendant, Shaun Blackman, was charged with intimidation of a justice system participant (an undercover police officer, TK) and uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm to TK, contrary to ss. 423.1(1)(b) and 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The charges stemmed from Instagram posts made by Blackman revealing TK's identity and containing threats, prior to TK testifying at Blackman's preliminary inquiry.

The court found that Blackman was the account holder and that the posts were made by him.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Blackman intended to provoke fear in TK to impede his duties and that the posts constituted threats of death or bodily harm.

Blackman was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with possession of drugs for the purpose of trafficking after police found cocaine, heroin, and fentanyl on him during a pat-down search.

The search occurred while police were executing a search warrant at an apartment where the accused was sleeping.

The accused applied to exclude the evidence, arguing the search violated his rights under s. 8 of the Charter.

The court found that while the police had grounds to detain the accused, they had no reasonable basis to conduct a safety pat-down search.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded, and the accused was acquitted.

The applicant sought a bail review of a detention order on charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, and participating in a criminal organization.

He argued that fewer charges, a new proposed surety, medical conditions, the COVID-19 pandemic, and trial delays constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the Palmer criteria and found no material change in circumstances, nor was the original decision clearly inappropriate.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

Following a five-day trial, the offender was found guilty of trafficking cocaine and assault.

The court, in sentencing, balanced the paramount principles of general deterrence and denunciation for serious drug offences with the offender's significant rehabilitative potential and lack of prior criminal record.

The trafficking was characterized as persistent, full-time street-level dealing at the higher end of the sentencing range.

The court ultimately imposed a custodial sentence, rejecting a conditional sentence, and addressed arguments concerning systemic racism and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sentencing.

The applicant, charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and firearms offences, sought release on a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The proposed release plan involved a single surety who could not provide 24/7 supervision.

The court found that while continued detention was not justified on the secondary ground, it was justified on the tertiary ground.

The serious nature of the charges, combined with a weak release plan that left the applicant unsupervised for periods of time, meant that release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of unlawful possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant execution.

Although a Charter breach was established, evidence was admitted under s. 24(2).

The Crown sought six years incarceration and argued gang membership as an aggravating factor.

The court rejected the gang membership finding due to insufficient evidence and unreliable police synopses and occurrence reports.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years less three months as remedy for the Charter breach, with the firearm offense receiving two years nine months and one year consecutive for fentanyl trafficking.

Following a finding of a section 8 Charter breach in a prior decision (R. v. Muhammad, 2018 ONCJ 468), the court addressed whether evidence seized pursuant to a defective search warrant should be admitted or excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The affiant's Information to Obtain contained misstatements regarding surveillance that had not been conducted and omissions regarding the accused's lack of criminal record, despite references to a "lengthy criminal past" involving weapons.

The court applied the Grant test, examining the seriousness of the breach, the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court concluded that while the breach was serious, it did not rise to the level of egregious conduct, and the reliable evidence (drugs and firearm) was necessary for trial.

The evidence was admitted.

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter application seeking exclusion of all evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant executed at 150 Dan Leckie Way, unit #1701, on July 16, 2017.

The warrant was based primarily on information from a confidential source regarding the applicant's possession of firearms and drugs.

The court conducted a Garofoli hearing to determine whether the warrant could have validly issued.

After excising inaccurate statements regarding surveillance and the applicant's criminal history, the court applied the Debot criteria to assess the confidential source information.

While the information was found to be compelling, the court determined that the credibility of the source was weak and corroboration was minimal.

On the totality of circumstances, the court found the ITO insufficient to support issuance of the warrant and established a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The offender was convicted of possession for the purpose of trafficking heroin, cocaine, and MDMA, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The offender became addicted to heroin after being prescribed Oxycontin for a back injury.

The court considered the offender's significant rehabilitative efforts, lack of prior criminal record, and the fact that he was a street-level seller servicing his own addiction.

The court imposed a global sentence of 33 months in custody, balancing the need for denunciation and deterrence with the offender's lower moral culpability and excellent prospects for rehabilitation.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, alleging a violation of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 36 months, with a net delay of 34.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that despite the applicant's complacency in moving matters forward, the Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or justify the delay under the transitional Morin framework, particularly given the simplicity of the applicant's case and his expressed disinterest in a lengthy Garofoli application pursued by co-accused.

The court granted the stay.

The accused, Christopher Saccoccia, brought a Garofoli application to exclude evidence seized from his condominium unit, alleging that the search warrant was issued without reasonable grounds and based on misrepresentations in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court reviewed the ITO, found that an alleged misrepresentation regarding "observation" was not a misrepresentation, and an inaccuracy in the number of visits was a mistake that did not vitiate the warrant.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the known drug dealing of an associate, the use of an adjacent unit as a stash house, and the ongoing association between the accused and the associate, the court found sufficient grounds for the warrant.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, Christopher Saccoccia, sought a stay of proceedings due to an alleged violation of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from charges to anticipated trial end was 35.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued for defence delay, case complexity (part of a large "Project Battery" investigation with 112 accused, including a joint Garofoli application), and the transitional exception under Jordan.

The court found 7 months of delay attributable to the applicant's failure to retain counsel and an additional 6 months due to the complex Garofoli application involving multiple parties.

With these deductions, the net delay fell within the 30-month ceiling.

Furthermore, the court applied the transitional exception, noting the parties' reasonable reliance on the pre-Jordan Morin framework.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicants brought a motion under s. 8 of the Charter challenging the installation of police video surveillance cameras in the hallways of their condominium buildings.

The police had installed some cameras with the consent of condominium management prior to obtaining a general warrant, and failed to disclose these prior installations when applying for the warrant.

The court held that the warrantless installation based on management's consent did not violate s. 8, as there is a diminished expectation of privacy in condominium hallways.

While the failure to disclose the prior installations breached the duty of full, fair and frank disclosure, the court found the omission was not material to the issuance of the warrant.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused, a 42-year-old father of three with no prior record for drug offences, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cannabis on a mid-level scale.

Over an eight-month period, he retrieved quantities of marijuana from a stash house operated by a member of a criminal organization for resale purposes.

The Crown sought 12 months custody plus time served, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with one year probation, giving full credit for 4.5 months of pretrial custody on a 1.5:1 basis and substantial credit for 16.5 months of house arrest under strict bail conditions.

Sentencing following jury convictions for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of a firearm without a licence, possession knowing no licence was held, and possession of a prohibited magazine.

Police located a loaded 9mm handgun with an oversized magazine during execution of a search warrant in a residence where the offender and two young children were present.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence in firearm offences and imposed a custodial sentence reflecting the seriousness of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay one overlapping count and imposed concurrent sentences for the remaining offences.

Credit for pre‑sentence custody was granted with enhanced credit for periods of triple bunking and lockdown conditions.

The offender was sentenced following jury convictions for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, ammunition, and a high-capacity magazine without authorization, along with related firearms offences and breach of a Youth Court prohibition order.

The firearm, a loaded prohibited handgun with a removed serial number and a magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds, was discovered in a suitcase containing the offender’s identification during execution of a search warrant.

The court considered the offender’s lengthy and escalating criminal record involving violence and firearms, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives under s. 718 of the Criminal Code.

After reviewing comparable authorities and rejecting a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum under s. 95, the court imposed a six-and-a-half-year sentence for possession of the loaded firearm with concurrent sentences on related counts and a consecutive one-year sentence for breach of a prohibition order.

Credit was granted for pre‑sentence custody, including enhanced credit for time spent triple bunked and during lockdown conditions.

The accused was charged with possession of six illegal firearms and conspiracy to traffic in cocaine.

The firearm charges were based entirely on videos found on cell phones seized from the accused's home, as no actual firearms were recovered.

The court had to determine whether the items in the videos were real firearms, and whether the possession occurred in Toronto and within the alleged timeframes.

The court found the accused guilty on two counts of firearm possession, relying on circumstantial evidence including the appearance of the guns, the accused's handling of them, and his threatening commentary.

The accused was acquitted on the other firearm counts due to lack of proof regarding location or timing.

The accused was also acquitted of conspiracy to traffic cocaine, as the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that an agreement had been reached.