Ryan Steven Heighton

The appellant, Brenda Elliot, appealed her conviction for fraud over $5,000 and two counts of uttering a forged document, and her three-year sentence.

She argued that her s. 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time was breached, and that her sentence was demonstrably unfit, offending the step principle, parity, and proportionality.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the application judge's calculation of trial delay, noting that even if there were errors, the net delay remained below the Jordan presumptive ceiling.

Regarding the sentence, the Court affirmed that the sentencing judge properly considered the step principle, parity, and proportionality, along with aggravating factors such as breach of trust, significant impact on victims (a non-profit agency), and the appellant's extensive criminal record for similar offences.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and, while granting leave to appeal sentence, dismissed the sentence appeal.

This is an addendum to a prior decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

Following the court's decision to allow the appeal, set aside convictions on multiple counts, quash one conviction, and substitute a conviction for simple possession on another count, the parties were invited to submit on sentencing for the substituted conviction.

The parties jointly proposed a six-month sentence before credit for pre-sentence custody.

Given the appellant had already served over a year in pre-trial custody, the court imposed a sentence of time served for the simple possession conviction.

The appellant, Richard Hillier, appealed convictions for possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of probation.

The Court of Appeal found that the police negligently destroyed crucial evidence (a fabric pouch and drug packaging) found in a police cruiser, impairing the appellant's right to make full answer and defence under ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter.

The trial judge erred in dismissing the application for exclusion of evidence.

The Court excluded the evidence found in the cruiser, setting aside three convictions and substituting a conviction for simple possession for one count where the purpose of possession was not proven.

This is an application for a s.520 review of a detention order.

The applicant sought bail, relying on material changes in circumstances including the COVID-19 pandemic, the withdrawal of some charges, and the availability of electronic monitoring.

The court conducted an open review but dismissed the application, finding the proposed sureties unsuitable and the release plan insufficient to address the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention, especially given the applicant's extensive criminal record.

The appellants, Desiree McNeill and John Waechter, appealed their convictions for jointly possessing heroin and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

A central issue was whether police required a second warrant to examine a seized cellphone belonging to an individual not initially targeted by the investigation, given the broad authorization in the initial search warrant for electronic devices found in a suspected drug trafficking hub.

The Court of Appeal held that the initial warrant, supported by a comprehensive Information to Obtain (ITO), provided sufficient reasonable grounds to authorize the examination of any electronic device found in the premises, including those of unknown individuals, without requiring a second warrant.

The court also found no basis to challenge the reasonableness of the convictions, concluding that the trial judge's finding of joint constructive possession was reasonable based on the totality of the evidence.

Both appeals were dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, possession of marijuana, and failing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the arrest.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired driving based on observations of slurred speech, glassy red-rimmed eyes, odour of alcohol, and the circumstances of a vehicle collision.

The Charter application was dismissed.

At trial, the accused was acquitted of failing to provide a breath sample because the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the failure was intentional.

The court found sufficient doubt regarding the accused's mens rea, particularly given his offers to provide alternative forms of testing.

The accused was convicted of possession of marijuana and acquitted of impaired driving.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with a disguise arising from a February 18, 2018 incident at a Petro Canada gas bar.

The accused, in his mid-40s with an extensive criminal history dominated by penitentiary time, entered the gas bar with his hood up and a knife, demanding cash from the clerk.

After obtaining the money, the accused was seen by the clerk who photographed the vehicle.

The accused threatened to kill the clerk.

The accused was arrested that evening, cooperated with police, and demonstrated remorse.

The court imposed a sentence of five years and six months, comprising 48 months for robbery plus 6 months consecutive for the disguise, with 195 days of pretrial custody credited at 1.5 times.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple serious drug and weapons offences arising from events on January 12-13, 2017, including possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana; possessing a loaded prohibited firearm; multiple counts of possessing firearms while prohibited; possessing ammunition while prohibited; and carrying a concealed weapon.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 years in custody, with the primary sentence of 9 years 9 months on the fentanyl trafficking count, plus additional consecutive sentences on weapons offences.

The sentencing emphasized denunciation and general deterrence in response to the fentanyl crisis in the community.