Ryan Handlarski

The accused was charged with trafficking heroin and possession of proceeds of crime after a police surveillance operation.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including intercepted phone calls using coded language between a known buyer and an unknown female, and surveillance observations of a brief meeting between the buyer and the accused in a vehicle.

The court applied the test for circumstantial evidence, finding that the cumulative effect of the evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to guilt.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.

The accused, E.G., was charged with one count of sexual assault.

The complainant, E.G.'s stepdaughter, alleged sexual assaults occurred when she was 15-16 years old, which she initially reported in 1998 but recanted the next day under pressure from her mother.

She re-reported the allegations in 2014 after years of therapy.

E.G. denied the assaults, and his testimony was corroborated by his wife, daughter, and a neighbour, who described a positive home environment and the complainant entrusting her children to E.G. and her mother for extended periods, including international travel.

The court considered the complainant's delayed disclosure and inconsistencies in her testimony, as well as the defence evidence.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the assaults occurred and acquitted E.G.

The applicant, facing numerous charges including conspiracy and trafficking fentanyl, brought a Rowbotham application for state-funded counsel.

While the court found that representation by counsel was essential for a fair trial and that the applicant had exhausted Legal Aid options, it concluded she had not established a lack of financial means.

The court noted that the applicant's spouse earned a significant income and had a legal obligation to support her, which she had not pursued.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to a future application on a better evidentiary basis.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death contrary to section 220 of the Criminal Code and to operating a motorcycle without insurance contrary to section 3 of the Ontario Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The accused operated a high-performance motorcycle while grossly intoxicated (blood alcohol concentration between 196-231 mg/100mL) and caused the death of a passenger.

A Gardiner hearing was conducted to determine aggravating facts.

The court found the accused voluntarily consumed alcohol, was grossly intoxicated, and that intoxication was a significant cause of the accident.

The court imposed a sentence of six years imprisonment, a ten-year driving prohibition, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a $5,000 fine for the insurance offense.

The accused faced a charge of sexual assault and brought a Charter application to exclude DNA evidence obtained through a warrantless penile swab and to challenge the admissibility of several statements made to police.

The court considered whether the swab constituted a lawful search incident to arrest and whether exigent circumstances justified the warrantless seizure.

While the court held that the search did not breach sections 7 or 8 of the Charter due to exigent circumstances and reasonable grounds, it found a breach of section 10(b) because police failed to ensure the accused had meaningful access to counsel regarding the intrusive procedure.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the derivative DNA evidence.

The court also held that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s statements were voluntary due to intoxication, lack of caution during initial questioning, and uncertainty about whether the accused had an operating mind.

The accused brought a pre-trial application seeking a stay of proceedings due to the Crown's late disclosure of his cell phone records.

The records were disclosed after the accused had already testified at the preliminary inquiry, providing an alibi for the time of the alleged robberies.

The court found that the late disclosure violated the accused's rights under s. 7 of the Charter, as it impaired his ability to make full answer and defence.

However, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was not justified.

Instead, the court ordered the exclusion of the accused's preliminary inquiry testimony regarding his alibi under s. 24(1) of the Charter, preventing the Crown from using it for cross-examination at trial.

The accused, charged with armed robberies, brought a pre-trial motion seeking disclosure of the Crown's prosecution file regarding a police officer's prior acquittal for manslaughter.

The accused alleged the officer was involved in beating him to extract a confession and sought the file to cross-examine the officer on his propensity for violence.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the requested information was clearly irrelevant, as an acquittal is a verdict of legal innocence and the facts underlying it cannot generally be used to establish propensity or credibility.