Ryan Wilson

The decision addresses an application by Deren Akyeam-Pong to exclude evidence seized during a search of a Toronto hotel room, arguing that the search warrants were issued without sufficient grounds and that his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were breached.

The court reviews the adequacy of the Information to Obtain (ITO), the role of confidential informant privilege, and the sufficiency of judicial summaries of redacted material.

The court finds that the ITO, as supplemented by a judicial summary, provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrants.

The application is dismissed.

The accused, Deren Kenneth Akyeam-Pong, was found guilty on multiple charges following a trial, including possession of a stolen motor vehicle, possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and various firearm-related offences, along with breaches of probation and release orders.

The court determined guilt based on circumstantial evidence, applying principles of constructive and joint possession, and found the defence's alternative inferences to be unreasonable speculation.

Following an 11-day trial where the plaintiffs were successful, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The plaintiffs had made multiple offers to settle that were more favourable than the trial judgment.

Applying Rule 49.10(1) and Rule 57.01(1), the court awarded the plaintiffs costs on a substantial indemnity basis fixed at $724,850.49, noting the defendants' unreasonable positions during the litigation.

Several nephrologists practiced together in a partnership and provided services at a hospital.

The hospital paid funds to a corporation controlled by three of the partners, excluding two other partners from their share.

The excluded partners discovered this arrangement and sued for unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duty.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched and ordered them to pay compensatory damages based on the plaintiffs' proportionate contributions to overhead, as well as punitive damages for abusing their positions of trust.

The appellant, a subtenant operating an unlicensed cannabis store, appealed the dismissal of his claim regarding improper sublease termination and denial of relief from forfeiture.

The head landlord had issued a notice of breach and later repossessed the premises after a police raid, relying on the original notice.

The application judge found that the landlord had not waived the breach because they were misled by the subtenant regarding a valid licensing exemption.

The Court of Appeal upheld this finding, affirming that a waiver requires full knowledge of rights, which was absent due to the misleading information.

The Court also upheld the denial of relief from forfeiture, considering the seriousness of the breach and the subtenant's conduct.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The applicant, Courtney Campbell, sought relief from forfeiture and re-entry into commercial premises after the landlord, 1493951 Ontario Inc., changed the locks following a police raid on Campbell's unlicensed cannabis store.

The court found Campbell had a valid sub-lease and standing to seek relief.

However, it determined Campbell breached the lease by operating an illegal cannabis business without proper licenses or exemptions.

The landlord was entitled to rely on a prior notice of breach from August 2019, as Campbell had misled them into believing the breach was cured.

The court dismissed Campbell's application for relief from forfeiture, finding the breach serious and the forfeiture lawful, and that it would not be inequitable or unjust to deny relief.

The applicant, Courtney Campbell, sought an interim order for relief from forfeiture and re-entry into his cannabis retail store after the landlord changed the locks.

The court applied the three-part test for interim injunctive relief from RJR MacDonald.

While acknowledging serious issues to be tried regarding the sub-lease and forfeiture, the court found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favored granting the interim order.

This was primarily because the applicant's business was operating without the required provincial and federal licenses for cannabis sales, rendering any lost profits from such an operation not the type of harm the court should consider.

Furthermore, allowing the unlicensed business to reopen posed a risk of charges to the landlord.

The interim relief was dismissed.

The offender, a youthful first-time offender, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine and heroin for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000.

The Crown sought a three-year sentence for the heroin charge, while the defence sought two years.

The court sentenced the offender to 28 months for the heroin charge, with concurrent sentences for the other offences.

The court granted standard 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody, plus an additional four months for harsh lockdown conditions and three months for strict house arrest bail conditions, leaving 15 days left to serve.

A two-year probation order and forfeiture of $4,999 were also ordered.

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.

The defendant, Emanuele Tesfai, was found guilty of two counts of conspiring to traffic marijuana and cocaine.

This decision outlines the reasons for his sentence.

The Crown sought 18 months incarceration, while the defence advocated for a conditional sentence.

The court considered the defendant's background, including a dated criminal record, significant personal crises (divorce and brother's suicide), and subsequent rehabilitation efforts.

Applying sentencing principles, the court determined that a conditional sentence of two years less a day, to be served in the community, followed by two years probation, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and a DNA order, would adequately address denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation without endangering community safety.

The accused was charged with two counts of possession of a loaded firearm, two counts of possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unlawful, and one count of possession of a firearm obtained by crime, following a RIDE check that revealed two loaded firearms in a vehicle.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds in a reverse onus bail hearing.

The court found that the accused had discharged his onus on both grounds and granted bail with strict conditions including house arrest, residence with his mother as surety, and a substantial pledge from a co-surety.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana arising from intercepted private communications during a police wiretap investigation targeting a street gang.

The Crown relied primarily on intercepted phone calls and text messages between the accused and a co‑conspirator, along with contextual evidence about drug terminology and trafficking practices.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of voice identification, circumstantial evidence linking the accused to a specific phone number, and the interpretation of coded drug language.

The court held that the communications demonstrated a mutual criminal objective to supply drugs to the co‑conspirator’s customers, establishing the actus reus and mens rea of conspiracy.

The accused was found guilty of conspiring to traffic in both cocaine and marijuana.

The offenders, both members of the 'Young Buck Killas' street gang, were convicted of various firearms and drug trafficking offences committed for the benefit of a criminal organization.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of their extensive criminal records, gang affiliation, and the nationwide scope of the drug enterprise against minimal mitigating factors.

The court sentenced one offender to 12 years and 1 month and the other to 28 months, after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also ordered delayed parole eligibility for both offenders, requiring them to serve at least half of their sentences.

This is a ruling on committal for trial following a three-month preliminary inquiry into Project Marvel, a police investigation into drug and firearm trafficking by members of a criminal organization known as the Young Buck Killers (YBK).

Nine defendants faced sixty-four counts including trafficking and possession of cocaine and other drugs, trafficking and possession of firearms, and conspiracy charges.

The Crown alleged that most defendants committed these offences for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with the YBK criminal organization.

The court applied the test for committal established in R. v. Arcuri, requiring that there be admissible evidence which could, if believed, result in a conviction.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit most defendants to trial on the charges, though some counts were discharged where the evidence was insufficient or speculative.

The court's analysis focused on whether the predicate offences were sufficiently connected to the criminal organization and whether the accused possessed the requisite mens rea.