Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The appellant sought to withdraw guilty pleas to one count of threatening and two counts of failing to comply with bail, alleging that the evidence was fabricated, that he was set up, that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance, and that he was coerced into pleading guilty due to threats and abuse by inmates at Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the guilty pleas were voluntary and unequivocal, that the appellant had ample opportunity to voice complaints during the judicial proceedings but did not, and that the appellant's account was neither plausible nor credible.

The court found no merit to the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

This is a criminal case where the reasons for the decision are not available at this time.

The appellant, a religious teacher, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 10-year-old student.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to address inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's evidence, improperly using a prior consistent statement to bolster credibility, and conflating the absence of a motive to fabricate with positive proof of no motive.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately addressed the evidence, properly used the prior consistent statement as circumstantial evidence, and correctly addressed the motive to fabricate in response to the defence's cross-examination.

The appellants, the publisher and editor of Your Ward News, appealed their convictions and sentences for wilfully promoting hatred against Jews and women.

They argued the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, misapprehended the evidence, and erred in imposing consecutive six-month sentences.

One appellant also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel at trial.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, finding the trial judge's reasons were sufficient, the verdicts were reasonable based on the overwhelming message of hatred in the publication, trial counsel was competent, and the consecutive maximum sentences were fit given the separate legally protected interests of the two targeted groups.

The appellant, a rap artist, appealed his conviction and sentence for uttering a threat to cause bodily harm.

The charge arose from a YouTube music video containing lyrics and images directed at the complainant, a music promoter.

The appellant, who was self-represented at trial, raised 14 grounds of appeal, including issues related to the complainant's credibility, disclosure of a Facebook message, cross-examination on his criminal record, and the trial judge's handling of various procedural matters.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, handling of disclosure, or sentencing.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and related offences.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, including prior firearms convictions, as well as mitigating factors such as systemic racism and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A global sentence of 9 years was imposed, with 64 months of credit granted for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, leaving 44 months to serve.

The accused brought pretrial applications alleging violations of his rights under sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the section 10 breaches, resulting in the exclusion of the accused's statements to police.

On the section 8 application, the accused argued that police unlawfully entered and searched his motel room without a warrant, leading to the discovery of a sawed-off shotgun.

The court found that the accused had provided valid implied consent for the police to enter the room to investigate a reported gunshot and broken window.

The section 8 application was dismissed.

The young person, charged with first-degree murder, brought a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown alleged the young person aided and abetted two others in the planned and deliberate shooting of the victim in a restaurant washroom.

The court applied the test for a directed verdict, assessing whether a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict based on the circumstantial evidence.

Finding sufficient evidence from which a jury could infer the young person knew of the plan and acted as a lookout, the court dismissed the motion.

The accused, whose first language is French, was arrested for sexual assault.

He brought a mid-trial Charter application arguing his rights under ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated because he was not advised of his rights in a meaningful and comprehensible manner in English.

The court found that objective indicia of special circumstances regarding linguistic comprehension were present, and the police failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the accused understood his rights.

The court concluded the Charter rights were breached and excluded the accused's statements to police under s. 24(2).

In an addendum to a previous decision on a motion to stay proceedings, the court reconsidered its ruling regarding the qualification of a forensic accountant employed by the Ontario Securities Commission.

Relying on recent appellate jurisprudence, the court reversed its prior finding that the witness had to be qualified as an expert.

The court held that the accountant could testify as a fact witness regarding the movement of funds, provided no opinion evidence was proffered.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct from 2008, involving domestic assault and unauthorized possession of a firearm, as similar fact evidence in a trial for similar charges.

The Crown argued the evidence was necessary to rebut the defence's assertion that the complainant planted the firearms.

The court applied the Handy framework and dismissed the application, finding the prior incident lacked sufficient similarity to the current charges and that its admission would be highly prejudicial.

In a pre‑trial motion in a murder prosecution, the accused sought to exclude statements made to child protection workers while he was incarcerated.

The defence argued the workers were persons in authority and that the Crown could not prove voluntariness, alleging breaches of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court held the Family and Children’s Services workers were not persons in authority because they were acting solely in their child protection role and had no influence over the criminal prosecution.

As a result, the confessions rule and Charter arguments did not apply to the statements.

However, portions of the interview discussing bail, criminal record, and possible plea resolution were excluded as irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pretrial motion challenging the admissibility of multiple statements made to police during a missing-person investigation.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of ss. 7 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because the accused was not cautioned and not informed of his right to counsel.

The court held that during the early stages of the investigation the accused was merely a person of interest in a missing-person case and not a suspect.

By the second police interview, however, the investigation had shifted to a homicide inquiry and the accused was a suspect who should have been cautioned.

The court found most statements voluntary and admissible, but excluded the portion of the second interview involving discussion of a polygraph and subsequent related statements.

In a terrorism prosecution involving allegations of conspiracy to derail a passenger train, the Crown moved for the appointment of amicus curiae because one accused insisted on representing himself while rejecting the legitimacy of Canadian law.

The court reviewed the law governing amicus appointments following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Ontario v. C.L.A. of Ontario, emphasizing that amicus must not function as defence counsel or undermine the accused’s right to self‑representation.

Given the seriousness and complexity of the terrorism charges, the anticipated evidentiary issues (including wiretap admissibility and editing), and the likelihood that the self‑represented accused would refuse to participate meaningfully in proceedings governed by Canadian law, the court found exceptional circumstances justifying the appointment.

Amicus was appointed with a limited role to assist the court on complex legal and evidentiary issues while respecting the accused’s autonomy.

The appellant brought a summary conviction appeal from convictions for assault and sexual assault following a trial.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence arising from a later civil discovery in which the complainant made statements inconsistent with her trial testimony regarding whether she worked the day after the alleged sexual assault.

Applying the principles governing fresh evidence under s. 683(1) of the Criminal Code and the Palmer test, the court held the inconsistent statements were admissible and had significant impeachment value concerning the credibility of the key Crown witness.

The court also found the trial judge’s reasons were deficient, particularly in addressing the third step of the W.(D.) analysis and in failing to grapple with major inconsistencies and evidentiary conflicts.

The convictions were therefore set aside and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after a justice of the peace ordered detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The charges involved alleged firearms offences, dangerous driving, and failing to stop for police following an incident in which a shotgun was allegedly discharged and a high‑speed police pursuit ensued.

The applicant proposed a revised release plan involving multiple sureties and electronic monitoring.

The court found serious credibility issues with both the applicant and the proposed surety and concluded the release plan would not adequately mitigate risks of flight or non‑compliance.

The court held that detention remained justified on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds and dismissed the bail review application.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving three grandchildren.

The court considered allegations that the complainants fabricated the allegations under parental influence and examined issues of similar fact evidence, prior inconsistent statements under the K.G.B. framework, and potential collusion or unconscious tainting between complainants.

After extensive credibility findings, the court accepted the complainants’ testimony as reliable and rejected the defence theory of fabrication.

The evidence established repeated unwanted sexual touching and sexually motivated conduct by the accused toward the complainants while they were minors.

The accused was acquitted on one count due to insufficient temporal precision regarding the complainant’s age but convicted on the remaining counts.

The applicant sought bail pending appeal following convictions for sexual exploitation and sexual assault against a minor and a custodial sentence of five months.

The court considered the criteria under s. 679(3) of the Criminal Code, including whether the appeal was frivolous, whether the applicant would surrender into custody, and whether detention was necessary in the public interest.

The Crown conceded the second and third criteria but argued the appeal lacked merit.

After reviewing the four proposed grounds of appeal concerning character evidence, alleged misapprehension of GPS evidence, DNA contamination issues, and reliance on a transcript of a police statement, the court concluded none demonstrated arguable merit.

The applicant failed to establish that the appeal was not frivolous and the bail application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault arising from an alleged incident during a work-related overnight stay at a rural property.

The complainant testified she believed she had been drugged and sexually assaulted after consuming alcohol and losing memory of the evening, awakening naked in the accused’s bed the next day.

The accused denied drugging the complainant and maintained that any sexual contact was consensual and initiated by the complainant.

The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given credibility concerns, the complainant’s lack of recollection, the absence of corroborating evidence of drugging, and post‑incident conduct inconsistent with the alleged assault, the court found that the evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.