Sara Samet

Amerullah Habib, father of convicted firearm offender Rehan Habib, applied under s. 490.4(3) of the Criminal Code for the return of a Toyota Corolla, which was deemed offence-related property.

The applicant asserted a lawful interest in the vehicle, claiming he paid for it, had keys, and used it as a family vehicle, and that he was innocent of any complicity in his son's offence.

The court found that the applicant had established lawful entitlement to possession of the vehicle, based on his uncontradicted evidence of payment and shared use, and that he was innocent of complicity.

The court emphasized that morally innocent third-party owners should not be subject to forfeiture, and granted the application for the return of the vehicle.

The 22-year-old accused pleaded guilty to firearms offences after retrieving a loaded handgun from his car and chasing a restaurant employee following a minor altercation.

The accused, who had ties to the drug trade, admitted on a wiretap to cocking the weapon and considering shooting the employee.

Despite the accused being a youthful first offender who had taken steps toward rehabilitation, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global penitentiary sentence of four years.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, Francis Norman, on charges of drug trafficking and breach of probation.

Norman had conceded smuggling drugs into a correctional centre but claimed duress due to threats against him and his brother by another inmate.

The trial judge found an air of reality to the duress defence and that the Crown failed to disprove it.

The Crown argued the trial judge erred in finding an air of reality to the "no safe avenue of escape" element, given Norman's opportunities to seek help.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the modified objective standard for duress, considering the specific circumstances of the prison environment and the threats to the respondent and his brother.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and uttering death threats against his common law partner.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months.

The defence sought a conditional sentence, emphasizing the accused's Aboriginal background, systemic disadvantages, and significant rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence to be served in the community under electronic supervision, followed by two years' probation.

The decision extensively applied Gladue and Ipeelee principles, recognizing the accused's intergenerational trauma, addiction issues, and genuine rehabilitation efforts while balancing denunciation and deterrence principles applicable to domestic violence.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a police response to a stabbing report at an apartment building.

Police detained the defendant in an elevator with the suspect and conducted a search, seizing cocaine and cash.

The defendant challenged the search on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10.

While the court found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the quantity of cocaine, the large amount of cash, and expert evidence regarding trafficking indicators, the court excluded the evidence due to an unreasonable search in violation of section 8 rights.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace following a stabbing incident at the intersection of Rossland and Salem in Ajax.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the victim, Joshua Lawrence, who claimed he was stabbed without warning while making a friendly greeting.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting that Lawrence approached him with an open box-cutter knife.

The court found the victim's testimony unreliable and accepted the defendant's account.

The defendant was acquitted of the assault charges on the basis of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, but convicted of possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace under section 88(1), as the defendant could have avoided the confrontation by contacting police.

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, threat to cause bodily harm, and weapons dangerous.

The Crown sought three to six months imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence with the first four months under house arrest, followed by two months of curfew, and one year of probation.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate despite the serious nature of the offence, as the defendant posed minimal risk of reoffending, had strong employment prospects, and had registered for anger management programming.

The defendant was tried on four counts: assault causing bodily harm, threat to cause bodily harm, weapons dangerous (an axe), and theft under (a computer hard drive).

The incident occurred on February 10, 2014 in Oshawa when the defendant arrived at the residence of his ex-partner to retrieve his martial arts equipment.

The complainant, who was living with the ex-partner, was present despite being asked to leave.

A physical confrontation ensued resulting in the complainant suffering a broken jaw requiring surgery.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting the complainant attacked him with a knife.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the defendant's account based on physical evidence regarding the knife's condition and the implausibility of the defendant's version of events.

This is a Dawson Motion brought by multiple defendants in a drug and firearm investigation known as Project Wheeler.

The defendants sought leave to cross-examine the affiant who deposed to the affidavit in support of a wiretap authorization granted by a Superior Court judge.

The defendants challenged two areas: claims about possession of firearms and statements that observations about meetings were indicative of drug trafficking.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendants failed to demonstrate how cross-examination would undermine the preconditions for the wiretap authorization and that the allegations of sweeping generalizations and circular reasoning were not relevant to an attack on facial validity in the circumstances presented.