Ryan Langevin

This judgment concerns the trial of two co-accused, Jordan Lazore and Brandon Laffin, jointly charged with firearms trafficking and importation, and Mr. Lazore also with careless storage of ammunition.

The Crown alleged the accused transported guns into Canada and transferred them to other individuals.

The court found the identity of both accused established by overwhelming evidence.

Regarding the trafficking charges, the court found the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed and intended to transfer the firearms, establishing a clear chain of continuity for the seized weapons.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the importation charges due to an 82-minute gap in surveillance after they crossed the border, which created a reasonable doubt as to when and where the firearms were acquired, preventing the inference that they were imported from New York.

The conspiracy to traffic charge was also acquitted due to insufficient proof of a prior agreement.

The careless storage charge was acquitted at the Crown's request.

The defendants, Philip Dass and Oren Lazore, brought s. 11(b) Charter applications for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial completion was 29.46 months.

After deducting 57 days of defence delay for Mr. Dass, the net delay was 27.5 months, which is below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court found that Mr. Dass did not demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings, nor did the case take "markedly longer" than it reasonably should have.

Mr. Lazore's application also failed, partly due to his counsel's unavailability causing further delay.

Both applications for a stay of proceedings were dismissed.

The Crown appealed T.L.'s acquittal for sexual assault.

The trial judge had a reasonable doubt regarding the first alleged incident.

For the second incident, the trial judge found the complainant was too intoxicated to consent.

The Court of Appeal found reversible legal error in the trial judge's analysis of the second incident, specifically the failure to address whether T.L.'s admitted actions (kissing, stroking, masturbating) constituted sexual assault and the lack of reasons for not finding party liability for the sexual assault carried out by another individual.

The acquittal was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The accused, Donald Waldorf, brought an application to strike his guilty plea to multiple criminal charges, including assault and forcible confinement.

The core issue was whether his plea was informed, specifically regarding the Crown's potential application for a Dangerous Offender or Long Term Offender (DO/LTO) designation, which was not clearly communicated to him or his counsel prior to the plea.

The court found that while the accused was single-minded in seeking early release and had cognitive deficits, his counsel was also unaware of the Crown's DO/LTO intention.

The court ruled that it is patently unfair for an accused to enter a plea without clear, unequivocal advance knowledge of potential indeterminate detention.

The application to strike the plea was granted, as the plea was not informed.

The accused, Aurèle Guindon, faced eleven counts of sexual exploitation, sexual interference, and sexual assault involving three adolescent boys he employed for property maintenance.

The court found the accused guilty on seven counts of sexual exploitation involving two complainants (D.M. and Z.M.), while acquitting him on four counts related to a third complainant (B.M.) due to concerns about witness testimony tainting.

The central issue was credibility, with the court finding the testimony of D.M. and Z.M. credible and reliable, and rejecting the accused's denials.

The court applied the factors for determining a position of trust or authority under section 153 of the Criminal Code, concluding that such a relationship existed and that the accused's actions were for a sexual purpose.

The accused brought a pre-trial application to exclude two videotapes containing a confession to the murder of the deceased.

The confession was obtained during a 14-month undercover police operation, which the court identified as a variation of a 'Mr. Big' scheme.

The undercover officers posed as criminals and offered to help the accused defeat an upcoming polygraph test, leading to a confession and re-enactment of the stabbing.

The court applied the Hart framework and found that while the operation triggered the presumptive inadmissibility of the confession, the Crown successfully proved the confession was reliable and its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect.

The court also dismissed arguments that the police conduct violated section 7 of the Charter or amounted to an abuse of process.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.