Samuel G. Walker

The appellant was convicted of drug trafficking following a search of his residence conducted pursuant to a warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The warrant did not specify a date for execution but authorized entry "at any time." The appellant appealed, arguing the warrant was invalid because it failed to specify an execution date, rendering the search a violation of Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that while the warrant did not expressly state an execution date, an execution date could be implied from the date of issuance.

The court rejected the appellant's characterization of the warrant as expressly non-expiring and held that the absence of an express date was a technical fault that did not invalidate the warrant.

The appellants challenged the Ontario Securities Commission's decision to constitute a different panel for the sanctions hearing than the panel that presided over the merits hearing.

The merits panel found that the appellants had sold securities without being registered as dealers and traded securities without a prospectus.

After the original commissioners' terms expired, a new panel was appointed to conduct the sanctions hearing.

The appellants argued this violated the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and principles of procedural fairness.

The Divisional Court split on the issue but ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the Commission's interpretation reasonable.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that both interpretations were reasonable and that the Commission's approach did not violate procedural fairness or natural justice.

The appellants, a father, mother, and son, were convicted of four counts of first-degree murder after four family members were found drowned in a submerged vehicle.

On appeal, the son sought to introduce fresh evidence claiming he was a young person at the time of the offences, thereby challenging the adult court's jurisdiction.

The appellants also appealed on grounds relating to the admission of expert evidence on honour killings, instructions on post-offence conduct, the admission of ante-mortem hearsay statements, and the Crown's theory of liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to introduce fresh evidence, finding the proposed documents lacked threshold reliability.

The Court also dismissed all conviction appeals, finding no errors in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings or jury instructions.

The appellant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm and forcible seizure following an alleyway beating outside a nightclub.

At trial, the judge admitted a security guard's written statement identifying the appellant as a participant under the past recollection recorded exception to the hearsay rule.

The appellant appealed his convictions, arguing the statement lacked threshold reliability and that phone call evidence was mishandled.

He also appealed his three-and-a-half year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding the hearsay evidence met the traditional exception's conditions, the jury was properly instructed, and the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the vigilante attack.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault and breach of probation and was sentenced to 183 days in custody based on a joint submission.

He subsequently discovered that this sentence triggered potential inadmissibility as a permanent resident.

He appealed the sentence based on fresh evidence regarding the immigration consequences.

The Crown conceded that a sentence of six months less a day would have been fit and that the fresh evidence should be admitted.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence to six months less a day to obviate the unforeseen immigration consequences.

The Crown sought to quash the preliminary inquiry judge's decision to discharge the respondent, Justin Allison, on firearms and drug charges via a certiorari application.

The police found a loaded firearm, drugs, and Allison's identification in an apartment he was seen entering with a key.

The preliminary inquiry judge found the evidence of Allison's knowledge and control over the contraband to be speculative.

The Superior Court, reviewing for jurisdictional error, affirmed the preliminary inquiry judge's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of review and that occupancy alone is insufficient to establish knowledge.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a small craft distillery, applied for a declaration that the markup imposed by the LCBO on spirits sold at its on-site retail store was an unconstitutional tax under the Constitution Act, 1867.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the markup was a proprietary charge levied by the LCBO as the owner and commercial supplier of the spirits.

Alternatively, the court held that the markup was a contractual term freely agreed to by the applicant in exchange for the authorization to sell its products.

The accused was charged with five sexual assault offences involving three separate complainants, with allegations spanning from 2002 to 2003.

The trial proceeded on the basis of the complainants' evidence alone, with no corroborating evidence.

The court found that each complainant engaged in significant inconsistencies between their media interviews, police statements, and trial testimony.

Each complainant also deliberately withheld material information from police and Crown counsel, including post-assault contact with the accused that contradicted their claims of trauma and fear.

The court concluded that the complainants' credibility and reliability were severely compromised by their deceptive conduct, late disclosures, and contradictory evidence.

The court found that the evidence failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The appellants appealed three decisions of the Ontario Securities Commission regarding a sanctions hearing.

After a merits hearing found the appellants contravened the Securities Act, the terms of the presiding panel members expired.

The OSC appointed a new panel for the sanctions hearing.

The appellants argued the original panel's terms were deemed extended under s. 4.3 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the OSC's interpretation of its own procedures and the SPPA—that the merits and sanctions hearings were separate—was reasonable.

The court also upheld the admission of merits hearing transcripts and the ultimate sanctions imposed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for firearm offences and his sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun found during a warrantless search incident to arrest.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the appellant based on corroborated information from multiple confidential informants.

The court also agreed with the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis admitting the evidence.

The sentence appeal was allowed on consent solely to increase the appellant's pre-trial custody credit to a 1.5 ratio in accordance with R. v. Summers, but was otherwise dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a summary conviction trial.

The sole ground of appeal alleged ineffective assistance of counsel on the basis that trial counsel decided the accused would not testify without advising that the decision ultimately belonged to the accused.

Fresh evidence on appeal demonstrated that counsel made the decision unilaterally and never discussed the option of testifying with the accused.

The court held that the right to decide whether to testify is a fundamental component of an accused’s control over their defence and counsel’s conduct constituted professional incompetence resulting in procedural unfairness.

Because the accused established that he would have testified had the decision been left to him, a miscarriage of justice occurred.

The applicant sought judicial interim release pending his appeal from convictions for assault causing bodily harm and forcible seizure, for which he was sentenced to three and a half years in prison.

The court found that while the appeal was not frivolous and the applicant would surrender into custody, his detention was necessary in the public interest.

The court emphasized the viciousness of the offences, the applicant's history of breaching court orders, and the risk he posed to public safety, particularly given outstanding charges for a similar group attack.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming proposed to revoke the appellant's liquor licence on the basis that its sole officer and director was a member and former president of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club.

Following a re-hearing ordered by the Court of Appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the licensee's extensive involvement and leadership role in a criminal organization provided reasonable grounds for belief that he would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty, despite a 13-year unblemished record in operating the licensed premises.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The appellant police officer appealed a disciplinary decision finding him guilty of neglect of duty and discreditable conduct.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission found that the Hearing Officer erred in law by failing to rule on the appellant's motion for a stay of proceedings based on abuse of process.

The Commission determined that the deliberate merging of the internal disciplinary investigation and the criminal investigation, which used regulatory powers to compel evidence for the criminal probe, constituted an egregious abuse of process and a violation of the appellant's Charter rights.

The Commission set aside the Hearing Officer's decision and ordered a stay of proceedings on all counts.