Ryan Mullins

The appellant challenged an Ontario Review Board disposition under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code.

Following a material change in living circumstances and concession that practical utility of the appeal had dissipated pending the next annual review, the court dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for theft over $5,000, seeking to withdraw his guilty plea on the grounds that it was not informed.

The appellant claimed he was unaware that a conviction would result in automatic deportation with no right of appeal.

The trial judge had imposed a suspended sentence and 12 months probation.

The appellate court found that the appellant was sufficiently informed of the immigration consequences through his trial counsel's advice that he could be deported and should seek independent immigration legal advice.

The court rejected the appellant's claim that he needed to know with certainty that he would be deported, finding that knowledge of the possibility of deportation was sufficient.

The court also found that the appellant had not established prejudice, as his primary concern was avoiding jail time, which the guilty plea achieved.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual interference against his step-daughter over a five-year period when she was between four and nine years old.

The complainant's evidence was admitted as a hearsay exception through videotaped police interviews and preliminary hearing testimony.

Two jury trials resulted in hung juries.

The trial judge, applying section 669.2(4) and (5) of the Criminal Code, resolved the case without additional evidence.

The judge found the complainant credible but had significant concerns about the reliability of her evidence regarding the third count, which involved recovered memories disclosed for the first time at the preliminary hearing after a nearly four-year gap.

The judge also questioned the accused's credibility regarding the mattress incident but found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on any count.

Not guilty verdicts were entered on all three counts.

This decision addresses the voluntariness of a statement made by the defendant, G.C., to police following his arrest for dangerous operation causing death related to a motor vehicle collision.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence from police officers and the circumstances surrounding the statement, including the delay in custody, the timing of informing the defendant of the fatality, and the failure to advise him of his imminent release.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada principles on voluntariness and credibility, the judge found a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's statement was made with free will, rendering it inadmissible at trial.

The court found Jamar Bailey guilty of robbery, pointing a firearm, and being in a motor vehicle knowing there was a firearm, in connection with a planned online transaction for PlayStation 5s and an X-Box.

The case turned on circumstantial evidence linking Bailey to the Snapchat handle “cookiestoronto,” the presence of a black Mazda 3, and the recent possession of a PlayStation 5.

The court rejected the defence alibi as unreliable and found the eyewitness identification evidence to be of no value.

The court also addressed Charter issues regarding police access to digital evidence, ultimately finding no prejudice.

Bailey was acquitted on charges of possession of a gun without a licence and reckless discharge.

This criminal trial concerned charges of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against the accused, T.B., involving his niece, D.B., when she was five or six years old.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant's testimony, supported by her mother's evidence regarding opportunity.

The defence argued that the complainant's evidence was unreliable due to the significant passage of time, her young age at the time of the alleged events, and inconsistencies in her and her mother's recollections.

The defence also highlighted the accused's identical twin brother as a potential source of confusion.

The court, applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) and considering the unique aspects of child witness testimony, rejected the accused's denial, finding his evidence unreliable and incredible due to numerous contradictions and his extensive criminal record for dishonesty.

The court found the complainant's detailed narrative compelling and credible, despite minor inconsistencies, and ultimately found the accused guilty on all counts.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay a sexual abuse prosecution due to unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay slightly exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

The Crown argued that the defence's inability to accept short-notice earlier trial dates should be attributed as defence delay.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the defence's unavailability on short notice did not constitute defence delay.

In the alternative, the court found that even if the delay fell just under the ceiling, it was markedly excessive due to significant disclosure delays and chronic institutional delays in the jurisdiction.

The defendant, P.B., brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging a breach of the right to be tried within a reasonable time, citing a total delay of 27 months and 3 days.

The court applied the Jordan framework, deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, resulting in a net delay of 16 months and 28 days, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The court found that the defendant did not demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite proceedings and that the case did not take markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The court delivered oral reasons for sentence after Roger Jaggernauth was found guilty of attempted murder and counselling to commit murder.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a total sentence of 16.5 years custody, with credit for pre-sentencing custody.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the devastating impact on the victim, the domestic context of the offences, the victim's vulnerability, the fact the attack occurred at her home, and the extensive planning involved in the contract hit.

Mitigating factors included the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, pro-social history, and time spent on house arrest.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it proportionate and consistent with sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, Roger Jaggernauth, was charged with attempted murder and counselling to commit murder.

The charges stemmed from a crossbow attack on Marlene Pimenta, his former partner, following a contentious separation and family law dispute over her financial investment in his home.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including Jaggernauth's strong motive, his solicitation of a "hitman" from a former biker club member (Paul Eakin), threatening utterances to his work supervisor (David Allan), and "heat conscious" after-the-fact conduct prior to being officially contacted by police.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, concluding that the circumstantial evidence, viewed holistically, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Jaggernauth orchestrated the attack with intent to kill and deliberately counselled murder.

The defendant, Robert Cairney, was charged with "over 79" contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, seeking a stay or exclusion of breath readings.

The court found no section 8 violation regarding the immediacy of the ASD demand or residual mouth alcohol.

However, it found a minor section 10(b) breach due to a 3-5 minute delay in providing rights to counsel and a section 9 breach due to an approximate two-hour overholding caused by paperwork delays.

Despite these breaches, the court declined to stay the charges under section 24(1) or exclude the breath samples under section 24(2), finding the breaches to be of low seriousness and low impact, and that admission of evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused, O.Y., was charged with two counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against his former partner.

The Crown faced significant obstacles in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, including evidence of the complainant's motivation to fabricate, unconfirmed testimony, and the accused's denial.

The court also addressed a Crown application for the complainant to testify behind a screen, which was denied.

Ultimately, the court found a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all counts.

This is an appeal from a conviction for impaired driving, where the appellant argued an infringement of their Section 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The total delay was 18 months and 16 days.

The trial judge, and subsequently the appeal court, deducted 54 days for defence delay related to counsel's attempts to bypass necessary pre-trial procedures, resulting in a net delay of 17 months, which is within the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

The court affirmed the necessity of pre-trials for efficient court scheduling and found the defence's conduct contributed to the delay.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown brought a Seaboyer application seeking to adduce evidence of the complainant's consensual sexual activity with the accused immediately prior to the alleged assault and sexual assault with a weapon.

The accused did not oppose the application.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence admissible for the limited purpose of providing narrative context as to why the complainant was unclothed at the time of the alleged offences, and that its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.

The defendant, Edward Bobbitt, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in his trial for operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated trial conclusion was 989 days.

The court applied the Jordan framework, deducting 322 days attributable to the defence (including periods of counsel unavailability and inaction in rescheduling) and 146 days attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The resulting net institutional delay was 521 days (approximately 17 months and one week), which fell below the 18-month ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the defendant had not made a concerted effort to advance the case and protect his s. 11(b) right.

The application was dismissed, and the trial was ordered to proceed.

The applicant, Sharabil Mohamed, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter due to an alleged infringement of his s. 11(b) right to a speedy trial.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the anticipated trial conclusion was 944 days (31 months and 1 day), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court matters.

The court deducted 14 days for defence-caused delay and 349 days for exceptional circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on court scheduling in the Region of Peel.

After deductions, the remaining delay was 581 days (19 months and 2 days), still above the presumptive ceiling.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness with further exceptional circumstances.

Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was granted.