Roots Gadhia

The applicant was charged with numerous firearm offences, possession of Schedule 1 controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime arising from his arrest and execution of a search warrant at 3-42 Pendeen Avenue in Toronto on March 27, 2023.

The applicant brought a section 8 Charter application challenging the validity of the search warrant.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO), after excision of inaccurate material, did not establish reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of the offences would be located at the target address.

The court concluded that the applicant's Charter rights under section 8 were breached and, applying the Grant balancing test, excluded the evidence seized from the search.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on multiple serious charges, including firearms offences, fraud, and human trafficking-related assaults.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and a significantly altered release plan, entitling the applicant to a fresh bail hearing.

Despite finding the applicant met his onus on primary grounds, the court dismissed the application, concluding that detention was necessary on secondary grounds (public safety, including the complainant's safety) and tertiary grounds (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice), citing the applicant's extensive criminal history, defiance of law, the gravity and strength of the Crown's case on recent charges, and the weakness of the proposed release plan.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence (a BB gun) obtained following an investigative detention, search, and seizure, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found serious breaches of section 9 (arbitrary detention) due to the prolonged, unjustified handcuffing and de facto arrest, and breaches of section 8 (unreasonable search and seizure) regarding the keys and wallet.

While section 10 rights were deemed not violated, the court excluded the BB gun under section 24(2) due to the serious section 9 breaches, but admitted the discovery of the keys and vehicle as it was minimally intrusive and could have been found by other lawful means.

The Crown applied under s. 715(1) of the Criminal Code to introduce the preliminary inquiry evidence of a police constable at trial, arguing the constable was too ill to testify due to psychological disorders.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the constable was not "unable to testify" as required by the section, given his prior testimony at the preliminary inquiry and the speculative nature of anticipated harm.

Furthermore, while the accused had full opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary inquiry, the court exercised its discretion to exclude the evidence, balancing its slight probative value against the material prejudice to the defence's ability to challenge credibility at trial, especially since other evidence was readily available.

The Crown applied under section 714.2 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting two civilian witnesses residing outside Canada to testify via video link.

The defence opposed, arguing that video testimony would offend the principles of fundamental justice, particularly concerning effective cross-examination, the right to confront accusers, and the solemnity of testimony.

The court granted the application, finding that video testimony would not offend fundamental justice, provided appropriate technical and environmental controls are implemented to ensure a fair process.

The court emphasized that while physical presence is not always required, the testimonial environment must maintain solemnity and control, and that the Crown bears the obligation to secure an appropriate video conferencing facility.

The accused, charged with unlawful act manslaughter, brought multiple motions during their trial.

These included a motion to exclude the testimony of a lawyer, Mr. Sodhi, on the grounds that his evidence was tainted by a breach of an exclusion of witnesses order and late disclosure by the Crown.

They also sought, in the alternative, a mistrial, a stay of proceedings based on abuse of process, and permission to call Crown counsel and an officer as witnesses.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the breach of the exclusion order to be minor and technical, the evidence not unduly tainted, no Charter breach affecting fair trial rights, no abuse of process warranting a stay, and no basis to call Crown counsel or re-examine the officer.

The court emphasized that alternative remedies, such as cross-examination and limiting instructions to the jury, were sufficient to address any concerns.

The accused, charged with manslaughter, brought an application for the case management judge to recuse himself.

The accused argued that the judge's prior involvement in administrative decisions to transfer cases out of Brampton due to courtroom shortages created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused failed to provide cogent evidence to overcome the strong presumption of judicial impartiality.

The court noted that the administrative transfer process and the court's commitment to managing resources efficiently would not lead a reasonable, informed person to conclude the judge had a closed mind.

The accused, charged with manslaughter alongside two co-accused, sought to bring several pre-trial applications, including a recusal motion, a jurisdictional challenge against transferring the trial out of Brampton, a section 10(b) Charter application, and an application for removal of counsel.

Due to counsel's medical issues and scheduling conflicts, the court had to set a firm timetable for the filing of materials and the hearing of these applications to ensure the scheduled trial date could be maintained.

The court ordered strict deadlines for the filing of application records and factums, scheduling the recusal application first, followed by the substantive applications.

The case involves three accused charged with manslaughter.

Due to courtroom shortages in Brampton, the trial was scheduled to be held in Kitchener.

Counsel for one of the accused suffered medical issues, leading to an adjournment.

Counsel subsequently indicated an intention to bring motions to transfer the trial back to Brampton or be removed from the record, but later attempted to unilaterally delay bringing these motions.

The case management judge rejected this delay, emphasizing the need for efficiency under the Jordan framework, and ordered strict deadlines for the defence to perfect any such applications.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm, breach of recognizance, and breach of a weapons prohibition.

The Crown sought a 4-year sentence, while the defence sought a 3-year sentence with enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions due to frequent lockdowns.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation while acknowledging the accused's youth, guilty plea, and remorse.

The court granted additional credit for the harsh lockdown conditions, resulting in a remaining sentence of 11 months in custody.