Sayed Hafizi

During a jury trial for sexual offences, the 16-year-old complainant was unable to continue her testimony after a recess on the second day of cross-examination.

The Crown applied to continue the trial, while the defendant applied for a directed verdict of acquittal or a mistrial.

Applying the framework from R. v. Hart, the court found that the incomplete cross-examination had little impact on the jury's ability to assess the evidence, as the cross-examination was near completion and the defendant had already explored most areas of impeachment.

The court held that any prejudice could be remedied by allowing defence counsel to present the planned confrontation using prior statements and by providing a specific jury instruction.

The Crown's application was granted and the defendant's application was dismissed.

During the execution of a search warrant at a residence, the applicant, a Black man who was not the target of the warrant, was ordered to the ground and handcuffed by tactical officers pursuant to a general police policy.

He was subsequently arrested for drug possession by another officer who mistakenly believed he was already under arrest and who lacked objective reasonable grounds.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude the seized fentanyl under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found flagrant violations of the applicant's s. 9 and s. 10(b) rights, noting the systemic issues and the heightened impact of the breaches on a racialized individual in his own home.

The evidence was excluded.

Thomas Patrick Sliwinski pleaded guilty to manslaughter, unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and pointing a firearm.

The charges stemmed from a campaign of intimidation and violence against a civil litigation lawyer, Lisa Carr, including an attempted shooting, and involvement in the fatal shooting of Soheil Rafipour.

The court accepted a joint submission for a global sentence of 12 years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and protection of society given the planned nature of the crimes, their impact on victims, and the attack on the administration of justice.

During a jury trial for drug and proceeds of crime offences, the accused testified that the $605 found on him upon arrest was from cashing a welfare cheque.

The Crown sought to cross-examine him and call reply evidence based on social assistance records indicating he did not receive payments by cheque.

The court dismissed the accused's section 8 Charter application, finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in the manner and timing of social assistance payments obtained by police under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

The court also permitted the Crown to call reply evidence, as the accused's testimony was new, unforeseeable, and relevant to an essential issue.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained on charges of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, while already on bail for previous drug offences.

The court found that proposing a new surety with GPS monitoring constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo hearing.

However, the court ultimately denied release on both the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the applicant's history of breaching bail conditions while residing with the proposed surety and the overwhelming strength of the Crown's case.