Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The accused faced numerous charges including weapons offences, drug trafficking, and resisting arrest after police executed a general warrant and a CDSA warrant at a hotel room.

The accused brought Charter applications challenging the validity of the general warrant and alleging violations of his section 10(b) right to counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter applications, finding the general warrant was properly issued with valid preconditions and the accused failed to establish a section 10(b) breach.

On the trial merits, the court found the Crown proved constructive possession of the drugs and loaded firearms found in the hotel room, and the accused's guilt for resisting arrest and possession of proceeds of crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendants brought an application challenging the facial validity of a search warrant authorizing the search of a residence in Niagara Falls, arguing a violation of their section 8 Charter rights.

The Information to Obtain (ITO) relied on confidential informant tips and police surveillance to establish reasonable grounds to believe the targets were trafficking cocaine.

However, the ITO failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the alleged drug trafficking and the targeted residence.

The court found the warrant facially invalid.

Applying the section 24(2) Charter analysis, the court concluded that the police conduct was careless and the impact on the defendants' privacy rights was severe, outweighing society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The application was granted and the evidence obtained from the search was excluded.

The accused faced charges of attempting to choke, assault, mischief, and criminal harassment involving a former partner and children.

The court acquitted the accused on the assault, choking, and harassment charges due to reliability issues, inconsistencies in the evidence, and concerns about witness contamination.

The accused was found guilty of mischief under $5,000 for damaging a bedroom door, which was supported by independent photographic evidence.

The self-represented appellant appealed his conviction for uttering threats to cause death.

Prior to trial, the Crown successfully applied under s. 486.3 of the Criminal Code to appoint counsel to cross-examine a Crown witness.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in applying a presumptive rather than discretionary test, and that the appointed counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal.

The court held that despite the application judge's confusion regarding the test, no miscarriage of justice occurred because the appellant had consented to the appointment.

Further, there was no evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel, particularly given the appellant's defence essentially admitted the facts constituting the offence.

The applicant, charged with robbery, applied under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude CCTV video surveillance taken from an elevator in his condominium building, which police obtained without a warrant.

The Crown conceded that if the video was excluded, the search warrant for the applicant's residence would be invalid.

The court found that the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the common area elevator video, as it was apparent that security cameras were present and the observations were unobtrusive and mundane.

The court dismissed the application, concluding that s. 8 was not engaged and, alternatively, the evidence would not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The Crown applied for a discretionary publication ban under s. 486.5 of the Criminal Code to protect the identity of the complainant in an intimate partner assault case.

The accused, a former political staffer involved in the "robo-calls scandal", was the subject of media interest.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown failed to establish a real and substantial risk to the complainant's dignity or personal safety that would outweigh the open court principle and freedom of expression.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his s. 10(b) right to counsel following his arrest during a dynamic entry.

The court found the police breached the informational component by delaying the reading of rights for 20 minutes despite having control of the scene.

The court also found an implementational breach when police refused the applicant's request for a second consultation with counsel after he expressed dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the applicant's statements to police.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic firearms after storing handguns for a childhood friend who was part of a broader cross-border trafficking scheme.

The accused's involvement was peripheral, driven by his drug addiction, and he made significant strides in rehabilitation over three years on bail.

Although the Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, the court found a sentence of 15-18 months appropriate due to mitigating factors, and ultimately imposed a conditional sentence order of two years less a day, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death following a motor vehicle collision.

At a blended voir dire, the accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Charter to exclude a statement he made to a police officer at the scene, alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the accused was questioned as a witness, not a suspect, and was not psychologically detained when he provided the statement.

The statement was also found to be voluntary.

The accused was convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited handgun found during a vehicle search.

The search followed a traffic stop where police noted evidence of cannabis.

Despite findings of Charter breaches (ss. 10(a) and 10(b)), the evidence was admitted.

The accused, a 45-year-old first offender with a strong pro-social background, community support, and health issues (sickle cell disease), sought a conditional sentence.

The court weighed the need for denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation and systemic factors (including anti-Black racism).

Finding the accused presented no danger to the community, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

Following a conviction for indecent assault, the applicant brought a post-conviction motion seeking a mistrial or leave to reopen the trial.

The applicant argued the court misapprehended evidence about the nature of the touching and failed to find that a prior inconsistent statement by the complainant was a deliberate lie.

The court held it did not misapprehend the evidence and declined to provide further clarification.

The court found the defence made a tactical decision at trial not to recall the witness to cross-examine on the inconsistency, relying instead on an Agreed Statement of Fact.

Applying the Palmer test and principles from Kowall, the court declined to reopen the trial or order a mistrial based on this tactical choice.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding the order the parties entered a shed, which allegedly rendered the complainant's account impossible.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's reasons did not hinge on the order of entry and that she was entitled to accept parts of witnesses' evidence.

The court concluded there was no misapprehension of evidence material to the outcome and dismissed the appeal.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing death and bodily harm after crossing into oncoming traffic at high speed and colliding head-on with another vehicle.

The collision killed the other driver and seriously injured the accused's passenger.

Despite the accused's youth, lack of prior criminal record, and significant injuries sustained in the crash, the court found a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the gravity of the offences.

The accused was sentenced to a global penitentiary term of six years, followed by a five-year driving prohibition.

The self-represented appellant sought an extension of time to appeal his convictions for tax offences, filing his application more than three years after the expiry of the appeal period.

He argued his guilty pleas were uninformed because he was unaware the Canada Revenue Agency would publish his convictions on its website.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the appellant failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed period, did not reasonably explain the delay, and failed to show the proposed appeal had merit or that the interests of justice favoured an extension.

The applicant, convicted in 2012 of first-degree murder for an intimate partner homicide committed in 2010, applied under the "faint hope clause" (s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code) for a reduction in his 25-year parole ineligibility period.

The court conducted the first-stage judicial screening to determine if there was a reasonable prospect a jury would grant the reduction.

Despite the callous nature of the offence and lack of full accountability, the court found the applicant's extensive institutional rehabilitation, model inmate behaviour, and genuine expressions of remorse satisfied the screening threshold.

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter following a mistrial on a first-degree murder charge.

The 19-year-old offender, who had significant mental health and substance abuse issues, shot and stabbed the victim in an unprovoked and brutal attack outside the victim's home.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 14-year penitentiary sentence, finding it proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender's high degree of moral blameworthiness, while accounting for his guilty plea and mental health challenges.

The offenders were convicted of possession of benzimidazole for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court noted that benzimidazole is a highly addictive and lethal opioid, more potent than fentanyl and resistant to Narcan.

The principal offender, who operated a high-end mid-level trafficking enterprise from her residence, was sentenced to 9 years' imprisonment.

The co-offender, a frequent visitor to the residence who was found to have diminished moral culpability as a 'found-in' party, was sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the offender's convictions for sexual assault and assault committed against young women on public transit.

The offender had a lengthy record spanning decades for similar offences.

The court designated the offender as a dangerous offender, finding that his chronic toucherism and intractability established a likelihood of future harm.

The court concluded an indeterminate sentence was not required and imposed a determinate sentence approximating time served plus 60 days, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The 14-year-old accused pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for shooting a victim during a coordinated attack on an apartment complex.

The Crown sought a conviction for first-degree murder, arguing the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court found that while the overall shooting was planned, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused planned and deliberated the specific murder of the randomly encountered victim.

The brief timeframe, the accused's youth, and the chaotic circumstances left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty of second-degree murder.

Criminal trial involving allegations of intrafamilial sexual assault against two child complainants and physical assault against one complainant.

The court applied the W.D. framework and held that the accused's core denials were believable and unshaken in cross-examination.

The court found significant credibility concerns in one complainant's evidence, significant reliability concerns in the other complainant's evidence, and further reasonable doubt arising from the evidentiary context, including the absence of evidence from the mother.

The Crown failed to prove any count beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals were entered on all charges.