Sandra Bacchus

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his detention, search, and arrest in connection with a series of street robberies in the York Village area.

The court found multiple Charter violations: an unlawful detention without reasonable grounds, an illegal search, and a failure to inform the accused of his right to counsel without delay.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these violations, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown brought applications pursuant to sections 540(7) and 486.2(1) of the Criminal Code seeking to admit a video-taped statement of an 11-year-old witness and to permit the witness to testify via closed-circuit television.

The defendant was charged with assault and mischief arising from incidents on August 20, 2016.

The witness had provided a statement to police describing witnessing the defendant assault his mother and assault him when he attempted to call 911.

The court admitted the statement under section 540(7), finding it met the threshold of reliability despite the officers' lack of training in child interviews.

The court also granted the Crown's application for closed-circuit television testimony under section 486.2(1), finding it preferable to a screen given the witness's age, relationship to the defendant, and the nature of the allegations.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a rear-end collision on Highway 409.

The Crown alleged the defendant's vehicle struck the victim's vehicle at approximately 4:15 am on January 31, 2016.

While the court found the defendant was clearly the driver of the vehicle involved in the collision, it acquitted him of impaired driving.

The Crown's evidence consisted primarily of an odor of alcohol detected by the investigating officer and the nature of the collision itself.

The court found this evidence insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, distinguishing the case from precedents where additional indicia of impairment were present.

A home invasion robbery occurred at a Toronto townhouse complex on March 3, 2016.

Three armed robbers entered a residence, demanded money at gunpoint, and fled with cash, a phone, and chocolate milk.

The robbers were observed on surveillance footage entering another unit in the complex.

Two defendants were arrested approximately six hours later at that unit.

The Crown sought to commit them for trial based on resemblance evidence and their presence at the unit where the robbers fled.

The court found that the identification evidence amounted only to resemblance, not identification, and that critical gaps in surveillance evidence prevented reasonable inferences connecting the defendants to the robbery.

Both defendants were discharged.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant was charged with five counts of attempted murder and gun-related offences arising from a targeted shooting incident on April 16, 2015, in which five victims were shot at close range outside a residence.

The defendant contested committal, arguing there was no evidence he attempted to kill the victims or was aware of the plan to shoot them.

The defendant was the driver of the getaway vehicle.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the defendant to stand trial on all counts, determining that while the defendant did not personally fire the weapons, there was compelling circumstantial evidence from which a reasonable inference arose that he knew of and was complicit in the plan to kill the victims.

A preliminary inquiry into the death of a four-year-old child.

The Crown sought committal on a charge of First Degree Murder.

The defendants, the child's parents, contested committal on this charge, conceding only to Second Degree Murder.

The court found sufficient evidence of planning and deliberation based on the totality of circumstances, including evidence of chronic malnutrition, vicious beating, head trauma, aspiration of gastric contents, and post-offence conduct.

The court committed both defendants to trial on First Degree Murder and on the additional charge of Failure to Provide the Necessaries of Life.

The applicant was charged with Care and Control over 80 mg and Impaired Care and Control following observations of her sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle in live traffic on Bayview Avenue.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking to stay proceedings or exclude evidence including breath samples, statements, and observations based on alleged violations of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest existed, but determined that no valid breath demand was made because the officer making the demand did not receive information regarding the grounds for arrest.

The court excluded the breath samples and readings but declined to stay proceedings.

The applicant's detention at the police division after medical clearance was found to be arbitrary, though the duration was not sufficiently egregious to warrant a stay.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against a 62-year-old woman with severe physical disabilities (cerebral palsy, wheelchair-bound) residing in a long-term care facility.

The accused, a 65-year-old volunteer visitor with no criminal record, digitally penetrated the victim and engaged in prior unwanted touching.

The victim clearly communicated non-consent.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by two years of probation, finding that the accused exploited the victim's vulnerability and demonstrated a profound lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct, maintaining delusional beliefs about the victim's consent.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter motion seeking a stay of proceedings for impaired operation and drive over 80mg charges.

The applicant alleged violations of Charter rights including section 7 and 8 rights regarding video recording in police cells.

The court found that the respondent caused the adjournment of the initial trial date through late filing of its Charter response notice and late disclosure of Police Cell Videotaping Pilot Project materials, particularly Phase 2 materials unknown to the applicant.

The court calculated 12 months and 4 days of combined institutional and crown delay, substantially exceeding Morin guidelines.

The court found both inferred prejudice based on delay duration and actual prejudice in the form of financial stress to the applicant.

The application was allowed and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

This is a ruling on the admissibility of documentary evidence in a criminal trial involving allegations of fraud at a Salvation Army distribution facility.

The Crown sought to admit thousands of documents obtained through internal audits and police investigations, including business records from the Salvation Army's Railside facility, emails, manifests, driver logs, invoices, and tax receipts.

The defendants challenged the admissibility of these documents on various grounds.

The court conducted a comprehensive voir dire to determine which documents could be admitted as business records under the Canadian Evidence Act, common law exceptions, or the principled approach to hearsay.

The defendant was charged with seven counts relating to possession of a restricted firearm and ammunition found in a speaker box during a search warrant execution at his Toronto residence on October 27, 2013.

The Crown alleged the defendant had knowledge, custody, and control of the firearm.

The defendant raised an alternate suspect defense, arguing his younger brother M.E. had placed the gun in the speaker without his knowledge or consent.

The trial judge found that while the Crown's circumstantial evidence was substantial, the defense evidence established an air of reality to the third-party suspect theory.

The judge concluded that the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on all counts.

The Crown applied pursuant to section 117.05 of the Criminal Code for an order disposing of weapons seized by police and prohibiting the respondent from possessing weapons for five years.

The respondent had voluntarily surrendered firearms and edged weapons to police during a domestic assault investigation.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to make the requested order because the application was brought approximately seven months after the seizure, far exceeding the 30-day statutory requirement under section 117.05(1).

Additionally, the court found that the preconditions for a lawful seizure under section 117.04 had not been met, as there was no evidence of the seizing officer's subjective belief that seizure was necessary for safety reasons.

On a hypothetical basis addressing the merits, the court found no legitimate concerns that the respondent lacked the responsibility and discipline required of a gun owner, noting the respondent's responsible storage practices and voluntary surrender of the weapons.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The defence challenged the validity of the breath demand and the timing of the breath samples, arguing they were not obtained as soon as practicable as required by the Criminal Code.

The court found that the officers acted reasonably and diligently throughout the investigation, including in administering the approved screening device, managing delays at the police station, and contacting duty counsel.

The court concluded that the crown had complied with the statutory requirements and was entitled to rely on the presumption of identity based on the breath readings.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with over 80 mg of alcohol in his blood, and speeding.

On August 24, 2012, police observed the defendant operating a van at excessive speed on Keele Street in Toronto.

Following a roadside investigation, the defendant registered a fail on a screening device and was arrested.

Breath samples taken at the police station showed readings of 100 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving due to lack of temporal connection between observed impairment and driving.

The court also found the defendant not guilty of driving over 80 mg due to unreasonable delays in obtaining breath samples that violated the "as soon as practicable" requirement under the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with Drive Over 80mg, Fail to Stop, and Fail to Remain contrary to the Criminal Code and Highway Traffic Act.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the total delay of 16 months and 17 days, comprising 13 months and 16 days of institutional and crown delay, substantially exceeded the Morin guidelines.

The primary cause of delay was the crown's failure to provide a working copy of the in-car camera video, which was essential disclosure.

The court found that the applicant acted diligently throughout and that the crown's inaction and poor communication regarding the video constituted unreasonable delay.

The court inferred prejudice based on the length and nature of the delay and granted the application for a stay of proceedings.

The applicant sought to exclude all evidence obtained during a DUI investigation, including breath sample results, on the basis that his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant for impaired operation based on observed erratic driving and indicia of impairment.

However, the court found a significant breach of the applicant's section 10(b) right to counsel by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact his counsel of choice before requiring breath samples.

The court excluded the breath test evidence and subsequent statements under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The Crown sought to admit three out-of-court statements made by the complainant, Terry Solomon, regarding an assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon.

The statements were made to: (1) his cousin Bertie Jean; (2) Police Constable Everett Dunbar; and (3) Police Constable Noel Hudson.

The complainant had left Canada and was unavailable to testify.

The Crown argued admissibility under the res gestae/spontaneous utterance exception or the principled exception to the hearsay rule based on necessity and inherent reliability.

The defence opposed admission and argued that if admitted, the 911 call in which the complainant stated he did not know who assaulted him should also be admitted for trial fairness.

The court found that none of the three statements met the threshold reliability requirement and excluded all three.

The applicant sought to exclude all evidence including breath sample results and oral utterances pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of his right to counsel under sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter, and a violation of his section 8 rights.

The court found a breach of the informational component of the applicant's section 10(b) Charter rights and a marginal breach of the applicant's section 9 right, but found no violation of section 8 rights regarding reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant, a police officer, was charged with 46 counts relating to insurance fraud through staged motor vehicle accidents.

The Crown sought committal on counts relating to a fake accident on August 24, 2010, and on counts of attempt to obstruct justice.

The court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to commit the defendant to trial on the fraud counts based on the defendant's creation of a forged accident report that contained personal details of the fraudulent claimants and was circulated in a manner consistent with facilitating their insurance claims.

The court also found sufficient evidence to commit on attempt to obstruct justice counts, holding that the insertion of false provincial offense ticket information into accident reports constituted an attempt to pervert the course of justice by misleading police superiors.

The defendant was charged with thirteen counts of firearm possession and three counts of robbery with a firearm arising from a home invasion on December 24, 2011.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on the robbery with firearm charges.

The defendant conceded committal on the possession counts.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit the defendant to trial on the robbery with firearm charges based on the doctrine of recent possession, the timing of the defendant's acquisition of the stolen firearms within hours of the robbery, and circumstantial evidence suggesting prior knowledge of the robbery.