Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The accused, charged with multiple drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offences, brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings.

He alleged that police used excessive force during his arrest, resulting in a sprained ankle, and that officers stole $5,000 in cash during the search of his apartment.

The court dismissed the excessive force claim, finding the takedown was justified and the injury incidental.

However, relying on the accused's weekly drug transaction log and video evidence of the search, the court found on a balance of probabilities that police stole $5,000 from a laundry hamper.

To denounce this serious police misconduct and preserve the integrity of the justice system, the court granted a stay of all proceedings.

The offender was found guilty of manslaughter for his role as a party to a fatal stabbing during a planned group assault.

The Crown sought 7 to 9 years' imprisonment, while the defence sought 3 to 4 years.

The court found the offender's moral culpability to be in the medium range, noting he was not the instigator or the stabber, but participated in a masked and hooded group attack.

The court declined to grant enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to a lack of evidence of adverse impact.

The offender was sentenced to 5 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The 77-year-old accused stabbed and killed his apartment building manager and wounded the manager's wife, driven by a delusional belief that the manager was having an affair with the accused's wife and was mocking him.

The accused admitted to the physical acts but raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder.

Relying on the expert evidence of two forensic psychiatrists, the court found that the accused suffered from Delusional Disorder which rendered him incapable of rationally applying his general understanding of moral wrongfulness to his specific circumstances.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for second-degree murder and aggravated assault, and was remanded to the Ontario Review Board.

The offender was convicted of robbery with an offensive weapon, use of an imitation firearm, and wearing a disguise with intent following a bank robbery.

The court considered the significant and long-lasting psychological impact on the bank tellers, who suffered from PTSD.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of violence, planning, and greed against the mitigating factors of the offender's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

A global sentence of 5 years imprisonment was imposed, reduced by pre-trial custody credit to approximately 4.5 years.

The Crown applied under s. 490(3) of the Criminal Code for the further detention of digital devices seized from the respondent during a child exploitation investigation.

The previous detention orders had expired.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing the police failed to comply with s. 490 and violated his s. 8 Charter rights.

The Superior Court held it was not a court of competent jurisdiction to grant a Charter remedy on a summary application under s. 490(3).

The court found that the technological difficulty of decrypting the devices using brute force passcode acquisition constituted sufficient complexity to warrant further detention.

The application was granted, and the devices were ordered detained for an additional year.

The accused was charged with uttering threats, criminal harassment, and firearms offences arising from arguments with his then intimate partner.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the complainant's testimony.

The court found the accused to be a credible and reliable witness whose evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

Conversely, the court found the complainant was not credible, noting she lied under oath about wanting to meet the accused after his arrest, swore a misleading affidavit in family proceedings, and gave evidence inconsistent with her 911 call.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant, Kamal Ford, brought a Charter application challenging the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and on his vehicle, and alleging a breach of his s. 10(b) right to counsel.

The court found that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained misleading statements that required excision.

After excision, the court held there were reasonable grounds to search the residence for clothing and phones, but not for a firearm, and no reasonable grounds to search the vehicle.

The court found no breach of the right to counsel, as a 20-minute delay in facilitating a call was reasonable due to transport logistics.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court excluded the evidence seized from the vehicle but admitted the evidence seized from the residence and during the lawful search incident to arrest.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and sexual exploitation, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of the trial was 968 days, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The Crown argued that three periods of delay should be attributed to the defence.

The court found only 18 days of defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 950 days (over 31 months).

As the net delay exceeded the ceiling and no exceptional circumstances were raised, the court found a breach of s. 11(b) and stayed the charges.

The accused was charged with causing an explosion at an automotive assembly plant following his vocal opposition to the employer's COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a device found at the scene and statements made by the accused to co-workers.

The court found significant evidentiary gaps regarding the device's capacity to cause the explosion and concluded that the accused's statements could reasonably be inferred as attempts to gain social standing rather than admissions of guilt.

Applying the Villaroman framework for circumstantial evidence, the court held that the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

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.

The self-represented applicant, facing sexual assault and other charges, brought an O'Connor application for third-party records from the Toronto South Detention Centre.

The applicant sought records relating to the provision of French language services during his pre-trial detention, arguing that inadequate services contributed to an abuse of process justifying a stay of proceedings.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the likely relevance threshold.

The court held that inadequate French language services in a detention centre do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under section 12 of the Charter, nor do they engage trial fairness or the integrity of the justice system under section 7 to justify a stay of proceedings.

The accused, having been convicted of sexual assault, was subject to a Crown application for a dangerous offender assessment.

The defence sought to retain a forensic psychiatrist to conduct a separate assessment, but the expert refused to work at the standard Legal Aid rate of $200 per hour, requiring $400 per hour.

The defence brought a Fisher/Peterman application for state funding at the enhanced rate.

The court granted the application, finding that requiring the accused to exhaust Legal Aid appeals or find another expert would cause undue delay and compromise his right to a fair trial, particularly given his lengthy pre-sentence custody and the disparity between Legal Aid rates and Crown expert rates.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence that his ejaculation inside the complainant was unintentional.

The complainant had consented to unprotected vaginal intercourse on the strict condition that the appellant not ejaculate inside her.

The trial judge found the appellant was aware of this boundary, intentionally disregarded it, and was in complete control when he ejaculated.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence and holding that the trial judge's rejection of the appellant's account was reasonably supported by the record.

The offender pled guilty to procuring sexual services and obtaining a material benefit from the commission of an offence.

The offences occurred over a two-year period while the offender and the victim were in an intimate relationship and had a child together.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the victim's youth and the offender's encouragement of her to work while pregnant, alongside mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, lack of a prior record, and the nine-year gap since the offences during which the offender lived pro-socially.

The court sentenced the offender to time served (one day in custody) after applying 557 days of pre-trial and bail credit, emphasizing the principle of restraint and the needs of the offender's child and elderly parents.

The offender was found guilty by a jury of sexual interference and indecent exposure against his daughter when she was between 10 and 12 years old.

The offences occurred during his parenting time while the victim was isolated and vulnerable.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed 18 months to 2 years less a day.

Applying the principles from Friesen, the court emphasized the profound breach of trust and the devastating impact on the victim.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of 3 years in a penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA registration and a s. 161 prohibition.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample after being stopped while operating a boat.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the demand was made immediately following the officer's reasonable suspicion and misapprehended evidence regarding the delay.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings regarding the crystallization of reasonable suspicion and the justification for the delay due to approaching rapids were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

In an extradition proceeding, the court reviewed the unredacted Information to Obtain (ITO) and redacted audio/visual recordings to determine if the redactions were justified.

The court found that the redactions fell within the ambit of public interest privilege, as they were necessary to protect an ongoing police investigation and public safety.

The court ruled that the Attorney General of Canada had satisfied its disclosure obligations and ordered the unredacted ITO to be held under seal.

The offender was convicted of five counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, including significant quantities of crystal methamphetamine, fentanyl, and carfentanil.

The court considered the offender's difficult background and mental health issues as mitigating factors, but weighed them against the aggravating factors of his prior trafficking convictions and the highly dangerous nature of the drugs involved.

A global sentence of seven years' imprisonment was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including robbery, dangerous driving, and firearms offences, arising from two violent carjackings.

The offender, who had a significant youth and adult criminal record for similar offences, used a firearm and gratuitous violence during the carjackings.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the offender's record and the violence used, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, the offender's youth, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The accused was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault and choking against his former intimate partner.

The sexual assault involved forced penetration while the victim was pregnant.

The accused, a youthful first offender with an intellectual disability and a traumatic background, faced severe collateral immigration consequences, including the termination of his refugee claim.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the gravity of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was sentenced to 3 years for sexual assault and 6 months consecutive for choking, for a total of 3.5 years in custody.