Sarah Loosemore

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual assault of a person under 14 based on alleged incidents occurring in the early 1990s within a crowded family household.

The complainant identified the accused primarily through voice recognition and described several nighttime incidents.

The court found the identification evidence weak and noted significant inconsistencies between the complainant’s initial report to police and later sworn testimony.

Applying the framework from R. v. W.D., the court concluded that the accused’s denial was credible and that the evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was charged with theft, assault with a weapon, and possession of a knife for the purpose of committing a criminal offence in connection with a robbery at knifepoint of a York University student.

The victim could not identify his assailants.

The Crown's case relied on video evidence from a nearby apartment building, eyewitness testimony placing the accused at the scene, recognition evidence from a police officer, and physical evidence of clothing seized from the accused's home.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt through the convergence of video evidence, eyewitness testimony, recognition evidence, and physical evidence linking the accused to the robbery.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to multiple counts of residential break and enter, theft, conspiracy to steal motor vehicles, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The offences were part of "Project Yellowbird," a sophisticated burglary ring targeting affluent Toronto neighbourhoods from late 2013 to August 2014.

The ring stole high-end vehicles, jewelry, electronics, and cash, with losses at individual locations reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Buczel, a first-time offender, appeared to be a central figure in the organization based on phone records and seized property.

Czeranowski had a significant prior record for similar offences.

The court imposed sentences of four years for Buczel and four and a half years for Czeranowski, with credit for pre-sentence custody applied at a 1.5:1 ratio.

The accused were arrested after police conducted a high-risk takedown of a parked vehicle based on an uncorroborated confidential informant tip alleging cocaine was inside.

Officers arrested the occupants at gunpoint and searched the vehicle, discovering cocaine and a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court held the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest or search, as the tip was vague, the source’s credibility was not established, and there was no meaningful corroboration.

The warrantless arrest and search breached the accused’s rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant, the court found the police conduct deliberate and serious and excluded the evidence, resulting in acquittals.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was arrested on December 16, 2012 for impaired driving and care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg/100 mL.

The trial was scheduled for March 13-14, 2014, approximately 15 months after the incident.

The court found that the Crown's disclosure was incomplete and late, with essential police notes not provided until after the second court appearance.

The court calculated state-attributable delay as 1 month and 4 days for late disclosure and 10 months and 3 days for institutional delay, totaling approximately 11¼ months.

The court found this exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8-10 months and that the accused suffered real prejudice.

The motion was granted and the charges were stayed.

The Crown prosecuted three defendants under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a serious workplace accident on October 15, 2008, at 45 Meadowvale Road, Toronto, where a worker fell from a roof and suffered a spinal cord injury resulting in paralysis.

The Crown charged Teisha Lootawan as a supervisor with failing to ensure protective devices and adequate fall protection, and with knowingly furnishing false information to an inspector.

J.R. Contracting Property Services Ltd. was charged as an employer with failing to ensure prescribed measures and procedures, failing to provide adequate fall protection, and failing to provide information, instruction, and supervision.

Andrew J. Haniff was charged with hindering and obstructing an inspector.

The court found that the worker was exposed to a fall of more than three metres without fall protection equipment or training.

The court determined that Lootawan acted as a supervisor with authority over workers, that J.R. Contracting was the employer despite cash-only payments and on-call arrangements, and that Haniff refused to answer lawful questions from the inspector.

All defendants were convicted on all counts.

The applicant brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings pending the provision of state-funded counsel.

The applicant was charged with seven counts of fraud, six counts of possession of property obtained by crime, four counts each of forgery, personation with intent, drawing documents without authority, uttering documents without authority, and theft, and two counts of obtaining credit by fraud.

The court addressed three issues: the applicable standard of proof, whether the applicant established indigency, and whether counsel was essential for a fair trial.

The court held that the standard of proof is a balance of probabilities, not a high degree of probability, and found that the applicant established indigency.

However, the court found that the applicant failed to establish that counsel was essential to ensure a fair trial, given her educational background, business expertise, and the trial judge's ability to provide assistance.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought leave to file a Notice of Cross-Appeal challenging a conviction under subsection 25(2)(h) of the Occupational Health & Safety Act, filed approximately 18 days beyond the limitation period.

The respondent had appealed the conviction within the allowable time.

The court applied the three-factor test from R. v. Menear to determine whether to grant the extension of time.

The Crown failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period and provided no reasonable explanation for the delay.

While the proposed appeal had some merit regarding the interpretation of regulatory terms, the court found that granting leave would not be in the interests of justice, particularly given that the Crown's decision to appeal appeared reactive to the respondent's appeal rather than based on independent concerns about the trial decision.