Sam Goldstein

The court sentenced Corbin Hucker to three years’ imprisonment on each of three counts of sexual assault, to be served concurrently, following a jury trial.

The offences involved non-consensual sexual activity with his intimate partner.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, including the seriousness of the offences, the intimate partner context, the impact on the complainant, Hucker’s lack of criminal record, his youth at the time of the offences, and the significant emotional and social consequences he experienced.

The court imposed ancillary orders, including a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender order, attempting to adduce fresh medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding it did not meet the Palmer test for admissibility as it would not have affected the Minister's assessment of the applicant's medical situation or the surrender decision.

Consequently, the application for judicial review was also dismissed.

The Attorney General of Canada sought an order to commit the respondent, Jayant Bhatia, into custody for extradition to the United States for prosecution on fraud charges.

Bhatia brought a disclosure application regarding a cooperating witness (CW-1), arguing CW-1's identification evidence was manifestly unreliable.

The court summarily dismissed the disclosure application, finding that a witness's cooperation or criminal record is insufficient to deem evidence manifestly unreliable in an extradition context, and that ample independent evidence of identification existed.

The court then granted the committal order for extradition, finding sufficient evidence for trial on all essential elements of fraud, including identification.

Timothy Joslin's application to renew his firearms licence was refused by a firearms officer due to public safety concerns, stemming from his history of impaired driving convictions and perceived disregard for safety rules.

Joslin referred this refusal to the Ontario Court of Justice for review under the Firearms Act.

The court, applying a deferential standard of reasonableness to the firearms officer's decision, found that the officer was justified in refusing the licence renewal.

The court reiterated that the burden was on Joslin to demonstrate that the refusal was "not justified" and confirmed that the officer could consider information beyond the five-year period specified in the Act.

The Chief Firearms Officer's decision was upheld.

Kal Tekolla pleaded guilty to simple possession of Fentanyl and Oxycodone, and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

The incident involved drug-related activities in a densely populated community area with children present.

The Crown sought a sentence of approximately three years, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the loaded firearm, the presence of drugs and drug trafficking paraphernalia, the dangerous location, and the accused's resistance to arrest.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, lack of prior criminal record, positive rehabilitative efforts while on bail, and family support.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and public protection as paramount principles for firearms and drug offences.

A global sentence of 30 months was determined, reduced to 26 months after credits for time spent on house arrest and for serving time during the pandemic.

The Crown applied for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from operating their restaurant in defiance of COVID-19 lockdown regulations.

The respondents had openly defied the Stage 1 Regulation by offering indoor and patio dining despite being in a lockdown zone.

The court found a clear breach of the regulation and no exceptional circumstances to refuse the statutory injunction.

The restraining order was granted, and costs were fixed at $15,000.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual interference with a 14-year-old minor.

The appellant admitted to the sexual activity but claimed a mistaken belief that the complainant was of legal age.

The trial judge convicted the appellant, finding he had not taken reasonable steps to confirm the complainant's age.

The appellant argued the trial judge unreasonably relied on "selfie" photographs, engaged in impressionistic reasoning about the complainant's appearance, and failed to provide adequate reasons.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reliance on the photographs was reasonable and that lay witnesses are permitted to express opinions about apparent age based on ordinary human experience.

Skot Tennant was found guilty of six counts related to firearm possession and breach of prohibition orders after a trial.

He was found with a .32 calibre handgun and ammunition in a backpack at another person's apartment, while subject to a s. 109 Criminal Code prohibition order.

The Crown sought a 5.5-year sentence, while the defence sought 3.5 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record with violent offences, taking a firearm into another's home, and repeated disregard for court orders.

Mitigating factors included an eight-year period without criminal involvement, work efforts, strong family support, and no evidence of firearm discharge or threat.

The court imposed a total sentence of 4.5 years, reduced by 99 days for pre-sentence custody and stringent release conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 3 years and 266 days.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, forfeiture of the firearm, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault against his step-daughter.

He argued the trial judge erred by permitting the Crown to engage in oath-helping during examination-in-chief, misapprehending evidence, applying uneven scrutiny to the testimony, and improperly admitting bad character evidence.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no impermissible oath-helping, no misapprehension of evidence, and no improper reliance on disreputable conduct evidence to convict.

Jacinda Hudson was convicted by a jury of importing fentanyl and possession of fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the devastating impact of fentanyl, and the offender's personal circumstances, including her lack of criminal record and potential for rehabilitation.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10-12 years, while the defence proposed 6-8 years.

The court imposed a sentence of eight years imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, along with a DNA order and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The Crown applied for an order to cease the cross-examination of a vulnerable adult complainant with significant intellectual disabilities during a preliminary inquiry.

The complainant had suffered a brain injury in childhood resulting in cognitive abilities comparable to a four or five-year-old child.

After approximately 30-45 minutes of cross-examination, the complainant experienced an emotional breakdown and subsequently threatened self-harm and to run away.

The court ordered the immediate cessation of cross-examination, finding that the complainant was no longer an appropriate witness to be cross-examined and that continued questioning posed risks to her safety and security.

This endorsement provides reasons for four trial rulings made during a jury trial for manslaughter, where the accused were ultimately found not guilty.

The rulings addressed: (1) whether jurors could ask witnesses questions (denied, emphasizing the adversarial nature of criminal trials); (2) the Crown's re-examination of a witness on prior consistent statements (allowed to clarify a one-sided picture created during cross-examination); (3) the Crown's request to introduce bad character evidence against one accused (denied, as the defence had not put character in issue); and (4) the Crown's request for a specific jury charge on aiding and abetting related to a push by one accused (declined as speculative and unduly complex given the Crown's primary theory of a group beating).

The appellant sought to withdraw guilty pleas to fail to remain causing death and fail to remain causing bodily harm under the Criminal Code, claiming he misunderstood the charges and believed he was pleading to Highway Traffic Act offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the onus of demonstrating that his plea was not informed.

All objective evidence from plea negotiations, the plea inquiry, the plea itself, and sentencing hearing established that the charges were Criminal Code offences.

The applicant, facing extradition to the United States for an $8.8 million fraud, applied for judicial interim release.

He was already on bail for domestic charges involving $200,000.

The court found that the proposed sureties and financial pledges were insufficient given the magnitude of the U.S. charges, the applicant's sale of his Canadian home, his ownership of property in Nigeria, and the nature of the charges which included identity theft and association with passport forgers.

The application was denied without prejudice to re-apply with stricter conditions and more substantial financial terms.

The accused was tried for possession of stolen property after attempting to sell a gold bar that was allegedly the proceeds of a fraud.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including cell phone tower data and the accused's familial and business connections to the perpetrators of the fraud.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the gold was obtained by crime.

However, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused had actual knowledge of the fraud or was wilfully blind to it, citing issues with the reliability of key witness testimony.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendants, a mother and daughter who were managers at a seafood retailer, were charged with Theft Over $5000 and Fraud Over $5000 for allegedly skimming money from the cash register between February 1, 2013, and October 8, 2013.

The Crown presented evidence of significant financial losses, surveillance camera summaries showing frequent instances of sales not being punched into the cash register, and testimony from employees regarding suspicious cash handling practices.

The defendants did not testify.

The court found that while the defendants' actions created significant suspicion, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court noted inconsistencies in witness testimony, the absence of direct video evidence of money being taken, and the fact that other employees also had access to cash and failed to punch in sales.

Both defendants were acquitted on both counts.

The defendant, Carolyn Burden, was charged with two counts of fraud over $5,000 arising from her employment at Max the Mutt Animation Inc., a Toronto-based animation school.

During her employment from mid-2010 to mid-2011, approximately $159,000 was electronically transferred from the company's account to the defendant's personal account.

The Crown alleged the defendant fraudulently obtained more than $100,000 in excess of her authorized compensation.

The defendant claimed all transfers were authorized by her employer, Maxine Schacker, either as salary or as payment for invoiced work performed at various hourly rates.

The court found the defendant guilty of both charges, rejecting her testimony and accepting the Crown's evidence that she had independent capacity to execute electronic transfers and that no invoices supporting her claimed additional work were ever produced.

The Crown sought judicial review by certiorari of a preliminary inquiry decision discharging multiple accused charged with murder, manslaughter, and attempted murder arising from a fatal shooting outside a nightclub.

The preliminary inquiry judge concluded there was insufficient evidence connecting the accused to the handgun used in the shooting and discharged all accused.

The reviewing court held that the preliminary inquiry judge exceeded jurisdiction by choosing between competing inferences and weighing the evidence beyond the permissible “limited weighing” required for circumstantial cases under R. v. Arcuri.

The evidence supported reasonable inferences of motive, means, opportunity, and a joint enterprise to ambush the victims, and the judge improperly preferred an inference favourable to the accused.

The discharges were therefore quashed and the accused were ordered committed to stand trial.