Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The accused pled guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing his intimate partner multiple times in the neck and face.

Both the accused and the victim were survivors of the Rwandan genocide.

A psychiatric assessment concluded the accused suffered from severe PTSD and was likely in a dissociative state during the attack, triggered by discussions regarding HIV status.

The court found a causal link between the accused's mental illness and the offence, significantly reducing his moral culpability.

The accused was sentenced to one year of incarceration, with a recommendation for a treatment centre, followed by two years of probation.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, brought an application to exclude his clothing from evidence, arguing it was seized from his father's apartment during a warrantless search in violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his father's home based on his familial and cultural background.

The court held the search was unreasonable as there were no exigent circumstances and the father did not provide valid, informed consent.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing the seriousness of the police conduct in entering a dwelling without a warrant and the negative impact on the Indigenous community's trust in police.

The applicant, who was shot during a home invasion, brought a Charter application to exclude drug evidence seized during a warrantless search of his girlfriend's apartment.

The police obtained a signed consent to search from the girlfriend, but the applicant argued her consent was neither informed nor voluntary.

The court found the consent was validly obtained and that the applicant had only a limited privacy interest in the apartment.

The court concluded there was no breach of section 8 of the Charter, and alternatively, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2).

The application was dismissed.

This is a bail review application under s.520 of the Criminal Code, seeking to overturn a detention order.

The applicant argued for a material change in circumstances based on a proposed change in suretyship, an increased surety commitment, and the addition of electronic monitoring.

The court found that the electronic monitoring was not a material change and that the proposed new surety, despite being more senior, was not in a better position to supervise than previous sureties.

The court concluded that the changes did not address the original reason for detention, which was a loss of public confidence in the administration of justice due to the applicant's repeated breaches of release conditions.

The application was dismissed.

The three accused were charged with importing cocaine after returning from a vacation in Jamaica.

Border Services Officers found approximately half a kilo of cocaine hidden inside cocoa powder cans in each of their checked suitcases.

The accused immediately disavowed knowledge of the drugs, claiming they were planted by unknown persons.

The court rejected the Crown's argument that 'Occam's Razor' proved guilt and found that the accused's immediate disavowals and testimony raised a reasonable doubt regarding their knowledge of the drugs.

All three accused were found not guilty.

The applicant brought a motion under section 8 of the Charter to exclude evidence (a firearm) found in his vehicle, arguing that the initial warrantless seizure of the vehicle and the subsequent search warrant were unlawful.

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to seize the vehicle without a warrant under section 489(2) of the Criminal Code, as it matched the description of a vehicle involved in a recent shooting and was believed to contain trace evidence.

Alternatively, the seizure was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act due to improper license plates.

The court also dismissed the applicant's Garofoli challenge, finding that despite some minor errors and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO), the issuing justice could still have granted the search warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought an order to excise information obtained through a Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) Act authorization, which was subsequently used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to secure a Criminal Code authorization for intercepting private communications.

The applicant alleged infringements of Charter s. 8 rights and the right to full answer and defence.

The court determined that the CSIS Act warrant met the minimum criteria for a lawful search, and the information derived from it did not violate s. 8.

Furthermore, the applicant's right to full answer and defence was not denied, as substantial disclosure of source documents related to the CSIS Act warrant had been obtained through prior third-party records applications.

Consequently, the application to excise the information was denied.

The Crown brought an application under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code to admit a videotaped statement of the complainant, who was 17 at the time of the alleged sexual assault.

The defence opposed, arguing the statement was not made within a reasonable time due to delays by both the complainant and the police.

The court found the delays were adequately explained and did not significantly impact the complainant's ability to accurately recall events, particularly given her age.

The application was granted, allowing the videotaped statement to be admitted into evidence.

The applicant, Awso Peshdary, sought disclosure of source documents from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) related to a 2012 CSIS Act warrant, renewing a previous request based on an alleged material change in circumstances following a Federal Court decision upholding the warrant.

CSIS and the Federal Crown opposed, arguing that the validity of the warrant had been decided by the Federal Court, precluding further challenge, and that no material change justified revisiting the prior disclosure denial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the renewed request constituted a collateral attack and an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate the warrant's validity in a different forum after a final determination by the Federal Court.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sought to raise the defence of extreme intoxication akin to automatism.

He brought an application seeking an order that s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which bars this defence for general intent offences involving violence, is of no force and effect.

The court held that it was bound by a prior Superior Court decision that had declared s. 33.1 unconstitutional pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act.

In the alternative, the court found that s. 33.1 violates ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and is not saved by s. 1.

The application was granted, allowing the accused to advance the defence at trial.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an encounter with the complainant.

The complainant, who was highly intoxicated, initially had no memory of the events but later claimed to remember non-consensual anal penetration.

The accused testified that the sexual activity was consensual and denied any anal penetration, stating that the encounter ended when the bed tipped and the complainant hit her head.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and corroborated by forensic evidence and witness testimony.

The court raised serious concerns about the reliability of the complainant's recovered memories, suggesting they may have been tainted by suggestions from a sexual assault nurse and police.

The accused was acquitted.

Sentencing of four offenders convicted of multiple counts of fraud over $5,000, money laundering, and committing offences for a criminal organization.

The offenders orchestrated a sophisticated, multi-million dollar fraud scheme targeting the Canada Small Business Financing Program and several major banks using sham construction companies.

The court imposed penitentiary sentences ranging from 14 months to 8 years, along with significant restitution orders and fines in lieu of forfeiture.

The accused, B.M., pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault against two vulnerable women who sought his "spiritual services." The court considered aggravating factors, including the abuse of a position of trust and the public advertisement of deceitful services, and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea and lack of prior criminal record.

The court imposed a global sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, less 4 months' pre-trial custody credit, resulting in a 14-month total sentence, followed by two years' probation and various ancillary orders.

The accused, Anthony Nathan Constant-Booth, was charged with assault, assault causing bodily harm, and aggravated assault following a parking lot altercation.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of eyewitnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault for kicking one victim, Pascal Marion, in the face, but acquitted him of the other two assault charges due to insufficient evidence of common purpose or direct participation in those specific incidents.

The accused was charged with robbery, aggravated assault, and failing to comply with probation.

The central issue was identification.

The court considered eyewitness testimony, including a photo lineup and in-dock identification, alongside circumstantial evidence such as the accused's physical state, injuries, possession of money matching the stolen amount, a TTC transfer placing him at the scene, and suspicious conduct regarding a wet jacket.

Despite some inconsistencies in eyewitness accounts, the cumulative circumstantial evidence, combined with one reliable eyewitness identification, proved the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, charged with possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, sought a Rowbotham order requiring the state to fund counsel of his choice after Legal Aid refused authorization to replace previously retained counsel.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing state-funded counsel and emphasized that an accused must demonstrate financial inability to retain counsel and that representation is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The accused failed to provide evidence of financial inability and primarily sought publicly funded counsel of choice after discharging previous counsel.

The court found the case was not overly complex and that the accused was capable of conducting his defence.

The application for state-funded counsel was dismissed, but amicus curiae was appointed to assist the court and ensure the orderly conduct of proceedings.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings after conviction for internet luring, alleging police entrapment arising from an undercover officer posing online as a 14‑year‑old.

The court considered the entrapment framework set out in R. v. Mack, including whether police provided an opportunity to commit an offence without reasonable suspicion, whether the investigation was conducted pursuant to a bona fide inquiry, and whether police induced the offence.

Although the court found that the undercover communications constituted an opportunity to commit the offence, reasonable suspicion arose shortly after the exchanges began when the accused continued sexually explicit communication after being told the persona was 14 years old.

The court further held the investigation was a bona fide inquiry and that the police conduct did not amount to inducement.

The application for a stay based on entrapment was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle while his blood‑alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

He argued that the trial judge erred in rejecting a Charter s. 10(b) claim, refusing disclosure of technical "COBRA" data relating to the approved instrument used to measure breath samples, and finding that missing maintenance records did not rebut the statutory presumption of accuracy under the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court held that the trial judge’s credibility findings, evidentiary rulings, and interpretation of the statutory presumption were supported by the evidence and consistent with applicable law.

The absence of maintenance records did not establish malfunction or improper operation of the approved instrument.

No reversible error was demonstrated.

The Attorney General sought forfeiture of $138,650 seized during a police search conducted in the course of a cocaine trafficking investigation.

The respondents asserted that the funds were legitimate family savings accumulated for education and housing.

The court rejected the respondents’ explanations as inconsistent and not credible, noting the storage method of the cash, the presence of a drug dealer’s fingerprint inside the safe where the majority of the funds were stored, and evidence linking the residence to ongoing drug trafficking.

The court also found that the respondents had misrepresented their financial circumstances and failed to disclose the cash assets while receiving government disability benefits.

The court concluded on a balance of probabilities that the funds were proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 and ordered forfeiture.

The appellant appealed a conviction for criminal harassment under s. 264(2)(c) of the Criminal Code, arguing the trial judge erred in refusing to reopen the defence case to permit testimony from the complainant’s daughter.

The proposed witness lived with the complainant and the accused during the relevant period and was said to possess relevant evidence regarding whether the complainant actually feared the accused.

The appeal court held the trial judge misapprehended the relevance of the proposed evidence and improperly imposed a due diligence requirement when applying the test for reopening evidence established in R. v. Hayward.

The daughter’s evidence was potentially significant to the key element of whether the accused’s conduct caused the complainant to fear for her safety.

The refusal to reopen the evidence created the potential for a miscarriage of justice.