Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The defendant, Nockeem Peck, was charged with possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application to exclude the heroin as evidence, arguing it was obtained through an arbitrary detention in violation of his s. 9 Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, finding that no detention occurred prior to a lawful arrest, as police merely approached the vehicle and observed a crime in progress before any interaction.

The court distinguished the facts from cases where police conduct constituted detention (e.g., physical obstruction or authoritative demands).

Alternatively, the court found the evidence would have been admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the minimal intrusion and good faith of the police.

Peck was subsequently convicted of possession of heroin for the purposes of trafficking.

Mohamed Hassan was sentenced for firearms and counterfeiting offences.

Police found a loaded handgun, counterfeit money, and counterfeiting tools at his home.

He was found guilty of multiple firearms offences after trial and admitted guilt to counterfeiting offences.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record, the sophistication of the counterfeiting operation, and possession of a loaded defaced firearm while on bail.

Mitigating factors included his youth at the time of the offence, strong family support, religious faith, mentorship of younger cousins, and efforts towards rehabilitation, as detailed in an Impact of Race and Culture Assessment (IRCA).

The court imposed a global sentence of two years and ten months, after credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while acknowledging rehabilitative potential and the systemic challenges highlighted by the IRCA.

The accused, A.G., a foster father, was charged with sexual touching and sexual assault of the complainant, S.R., a minor in his care.

The Crown presented evidence including DNA found on underwear, which matched the accused.

The defence argued that the complainant had a motive to fabricate the allegations to secure her removal from the foster home.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony, issues with the provenance of the DNA evidence, and a plausible motive for fabrication.

The court concluded that there was a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, leading to an acquittal on all counts.

The defendant was charged with multiple offences against the complainant, his intimate partner, including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault, pointing a firearm, and uttering threats, as well as breaches of probation.

The Crown sought to admit similar fact evidence across counts, which was dismissed due to lack of similarity between incidents.

The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting vagueness, inconsistencies, and a potential motive to fabricate due to the relationship's end and financial difficulties.

Ultimately, the court found that the Crown failed to prove any of the alleged offences beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the defendant's acquittal on all counts.

The applicant, Damaine Sitladeen, faced firearm and drug charges and brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 9 to exclude evidence.

He alleged unlawful arrest due to racial bias, an overbroad search incident to arrest, and an unconstitutional strip search.

The court found no Charter violations, concluding that the arrest was based on reasonable grounds (missing license plate), the vehicle search was incidental to arrest and reasonable (including for identification and after drug discovery), and the strip search was justified and conducted reasonably.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant, Randall Devries, sought to exclude evidence obtained by police, arguing that their entry onto his property, subsequent arrest, and vehicle search violated his Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the police were authorized to enter the property to investigate impaired driving complaints, and the arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

Patrick Williams pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit robbery and one count of impaired driving.

The court considered the serious nature of the uncommitted robberies (including planned home invasions), the offender's related criminal record, and the impaired driving incident as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, guilty plea, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the pandemic, and a disadvantaged background marked by anti-Black racism.

The Crown sought a three-year prison sentence, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court imposed a total sentence of 30 months imprisonment, but due to pre-sentence custody credit, the effective sentence was one day in prison (time served).

Ahmad Hasan was charged with two counts of criminal harassment and three counts of breach of probation stemming from his public Facebook postings targeting a detective and a lawyer involved in his previous criminal cases, and for breaching a publication ban.

The court found that Hasan's conduct, including seeking personal information about the complainants and making derogatory remarks, constituted threatening and harassing behaviour.

The complainants' fears for their safety were deemed objectively reasonable given the context of Hasan's prior convictions and obsessive conduct.

The court found Hasan guilty on all five charges.

The accused, Vinod Vasavan, sought a bail variation under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to permit contact with his wife, who had recanted her initial allegations of domestic violence.

The Crown opposed the variation.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to review an undertaking given to a peace officer under s. 498(1)(c).

The court held that s. 520 only applies to orders made by a justice under s. 515, and that the proper recourse for varying such an undertaking, in the absence of consent, is an application to a justice under s. 502(2) to replace the undertaking with a release order.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault.

The case hinged on the credibility of the complainant and the accused, who presented starkly different accounts of the sexual encounter.

The complainant testified to non-consensual acts, while the accused maintained all activity was consensual.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness on the central issue of non-consent, despite some memory issues.

However, the court determined that the accused's evidence, while not positively believed, could not be safely rejected and raised a reasonable doubt regarding the essential element of lack of consent.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted.

Charles Okito pleaded guilty to kidnapping and robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors (impact on victim, imitation firearm) and mitigating factors (youth, first offence, guilty plea, difficult background, mental health challenges, collateral consequence of deportation).

Applying sentencing principles, including deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a sentence of 42 months' imprisonment before credit for presentence custody, resulting in a further 20 months and 15 days to serve.

The judge also made a DNA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order, and waived the victim fine surcharge.

The judge recommended against deportation due to the offender's rehabilitation prospects and lack of support in his home country.

Chaddrick Brown was charged with possession of a loaded illegal handgun.

He pleaded guilty to drug trafficking but denied knowledge of the handgun found in his rented car.

The trial focused on whether the Crown could prove constructive possession of the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected Brown's testimony, finding his account vague and inconsistent with other evidence, including his friend's testimony.

The judge concluded that the handgun was habitually kept in the car for the driver's use and that Brown, as the primary driver and controller of the vehicle, was in possession of it.

Brown was found guilty of the handgun offences.

Trayon Johnson, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, sought an order under s. 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to challenge prospective jurors for cause.

He proposed augmenting the traditional *Parks* questions with multiple-choice options to address subconscious racial bias against men of African ancestry.

The court acknowledged the existence of racial stereotypes and unconscious bias, finding that appropriately-constructed multiple-choice questions could be more effective than standard "yes/no" questions in identifying such biases.

The proposed multiple-choice questions were approved to ensure an impartial jury.

This decision addresses jury instructions on modes of participation for two accused, Richard Ireland and Trayon Johnson, in a joint jury trial for second-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown's application for Ireland as a principal (s. 21(1)(a) Criminal Code) and Johnson as an aider (s. 21(1)(b) Criminal Code) was granted.

The Crown's application for Johnson as a co-principal (s. 21(2) Criminal Code) was dismissed, as was Johnson's request for the jury to be instructed only on s. 21(2) and thus preclude a second-degree murder verdict for him.

The court found an air of reality for Johnson's conviction as an aider but not as a co-principal for second-degree murder.

This decision provides reasons for an inquiry into an incident where the accused, David Baichoo, appeared in a security gown, naked underneath, on the first day of his first-degree murder trial.

The incident, which led to the loss of a trial day and compromised the dignity of the proceedings, was attributed to the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC).

The court found that the TSDC's reliance on unreliable body scans for contraband and the indifference of staff, particularly Sgt. Polanski, led to the deplorable situation.

Despite the subsequent abandonment of the defence's application for costs, the court issued these reasons to highlight systemic failures in the treatment of accused persons and to ensure accountability.

A youth, T.J.T., convicted of second-degree murder, faced a Crown application for an adult sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court assessed the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness and the sufficiency of a youth sentence for accountability.

Considering T.J.T.'s difficult upbringing, immaturity at the time of the offence, and significant rehabilitative progress in custody, the court found the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness was not rebutted.

Consequently, a youth sentence was imposed, consisting of the maximum four years in custody followed by three years of conditional supervision, with no credit for pre-sentence custody to ensure sufficient accountability and rehabilitation.

The accused, Albert Peterson, was charged with five drug-related offences, including possession of cannabis marihuana, methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDA), and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of MDA and methamphetamine.

The charges arose from a search warrant executed at a residence where the accused was present and had effective control over a specific bedroom where the drugs and trafficking paraphernalia were found.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove possession and knowledge.

The court found the accused guilty on all five counts, concluding that the Crown had established all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt, including the accused's possession of the substances and knowledge of their nature.

Lucas John Ridgeway pleaded guilty to seven offences, including aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, arising from incidents of domestic violence between 2009 and 2012.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation and an indeterminate sentence, while the defence conceded dangerous offender status but argued for a fixed sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The court found Ridgeway to be a dangerous offender, citing a pattern of escalating violence and persistent aggressive behaviour towards his domestic partners.

Applying the three-part test from R. v. McCallum, the court determined that there was no reasonable expectation that a lesser measure would adequately protect the public, particularly given the unavailability of recommended therapy (DBT) in federal facilities and Ridgeway's history of re-offending immediately upon release.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order and lifetime prohibitions on firearms and victim contact.

Deepu Sawh, charged with four counts of trafficking crack cocaine, sought a judicial stay of proceedings based on entrapment after the Crown closed its case and guilt was admitted.

The application was dismissed.

The court found that the police had reasonable suspicion to investigate Sawh based on a detailed and reliable confidential informant tip, and the undercover officer's initial interaction was a legitimate investigative step, not an inducement.

The court emphasized that the reasonable suspicion inquiry should focus on the collective knowledge of the investigative team.

Following guilty pleas to sexual assault, sexual interference, and breach of a prohibition order, the Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender under s. 753 of the Criminal Code.

The offender had a history of sexual offences against children, including prior convictions and repeated conduct demonstrating a pattern of sexual violence against minors.

Expert psychiatric evidence diagnosed pedophilia and antisocial personality traits, with actuarial assessments indicating a moderate‑high to high risk of sexual recidivism.

The court concluded there was no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence followed by long‑term supervision would adequately protect the public.

An indeterminate sentence was imposed after the offender was declared a dangerous offender.