Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The court considered pre-trial applications by Althea Christopher and Tianna Smith to exclude evidence in a prosecution for unauthorized possession of a prohibited firearm while occupying a motor vehicle.

The applications were based on alleged breaches of Charter rights, including unreasonable search and seizure, and failures to comply with statutory reporting requirements.

The court found that the warrantless search of the vehicle's interior, which led to the discovery of a spent bullet casing, violated section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the Crown subsequently withdrew the charges, ending the proceeding.

Jahmel Burke pleaded guilty to multiple counts of trafficking in fentanyl, cocaine, and other controlled substances, as well as possession for the purpose of trafficking and possession of property obtained by crime.

The court considered aggravating and mitigating factors, the range of sentences for similar offences, and imposed a global sentence of 11 years' imprisonment, with concurrent sentences on the remaining counts, and credit for pre-sentence custody.

The decision discusses the seriousness of fentanyl trafficking and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

This sentencing decision concerns Noah Anderson and Junior Jahmal Harvey, who were convicted by a jury of the first-degree murder of Thane Murray and the attempted murder of Allen Uthayakumaran and Tony Nguyen.

The court imposed the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility for 25 years for first-degree murder and, after considering aggravating and mitigating factors, imposed concurrent life sentences for the two counts of attempted murder.

The reasons detail the circumstances of the offence, the profound impact on the victims and community, the backgrounds of the offenders, and the applicable sentencing principles and case law.

The decision addresses three main issues: (1) the application to re-open the trial to reconsider the s. 24(2) Charter analysis in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal’s decision in R. v. McGowan-Morris, (2) the application for a stay of proceedings due to delay in conducting the accused’s bail hearing, and (3) the appropriate sentence for the accused, Ivor Shawn Young, following his conviction for unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of cocaine.

The court found a breach of the accused’s s. 10(b) Charter rights but concluded that exclusion of the evidence was not warranted.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed, and a sentence of three years’ imprisonment (less credit for pre-sentence custody and Downes credit) was imposed.

This decision addresses the admissibility of ante-mortem statements made by the deceased, Mark Bakir, in the prosecution of Alessandro Giammichele for murder.

The court reviews the law on hearsay, including both the traditional state of mind exception and the principled approach, and applies these to various statements made by the deceased to friends and family regarding a loan and the accused's failure to repay.

The court finds most of the statements admissible, with some exceptions for opinion and cumulative evidence.

The court considered whether the defence could cross-examine Constable Ali Sabeeh on prior negative judicial findings made against him in an unrelated case (R. v. Uniat) to challenge his credibility and establish a pattern of Charter breaches.

The court reviewed the legal framework for admitting such evidence, including the need for a high degree of similarity and a proper evidentiary foundation.

Ultimately, the court found that the prior findings in Uniat were of marginal relevance and that their prejudicial effect outweighed any probative value.

The application to cross-examine on those findings was dismissed, but the defence was permitted to explore the officer’s training on Charter issues.

The accused, Athena King, was stopped by police and found in possession of illegal drugs.

She challenged the admissibility of the evidence, alleging breaches of her Charter rights during the stop, search, and arrest.

The court found minor breaches of her right to counsel but held that these did not warrant exclusion of the evidence.

King was found guilty of all charges.

The accused was charged with making and possessing child pornography, specifically text messages, contrary to sections 163.1(2) and 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code.

The trial focused on whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the person depicted in the messages was under 18 years old.

The court reviewed the evidentiary record, including an agreed statement of facts and the text messages exchanged between the accused and an undercover officer.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Villaroman and R. v. Starr regarding circumstantial evidence and the standard of proof.

Ultimately, the court found that the only reasonable inference was that the numbers "13" and "14" in the messages referred to age, and convicted the accused on both counts.

The plaintiff, Tiffany Longarini, sued four lawyers for breach of confidence after a settlement email she sent was disclosed to the Crown in a related criminal proceeding.

The court found that the email was not protected by settlement privilege due to its content and the context of its use, and that even if it were, disclosure was justified by the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.

The claim was struck without leave to amend.

The court sentenced Hugo Munoz to 14 years in prison for the manslaughter of his intimate partner, Cindy Coffey, after he pleaded guilty partway through his trial.

The decision details the facts of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, Mr. Munoz’s mental health history, and the joint sentencing submission.

The court accepted the joint position, emphasizing the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and the mitigating factors of Mr. Munoz’s guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and mental illness.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-contact order with specified individuals.

The court sentenced David Morias for offences including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a prohibited device, and possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The decision reviews the aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic anti-Black racism, and the appropriate sentencing range for mid-level fentanyl traffickers.

The court imposed a global sentence of 90 ⅔ months after credits for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, with ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture.

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

The court sentenced Zongxiu Jiang to 18 months' incarceration for cultivating cannabis in a non-dwelling house, contrary to s. 12(6)(a) of the Cannabis Act.

The decision reviews the facts, the parties' positions, sentencing principles, and the range of sentences for large-scale cannabis operations.

The court found that, despite mitigating factors such as a guilty plea and family hardship, the gravity and scale of the commercial operation, and Jiang's role as principal, required a custodial sentence.

The court declined to impose a conditional sentence, emphasizing the paramount importance of deterrence and denunciation in such cases, and held that collateral immigration consequences could not justify a more lenient sentence.

The decision concerns the extradition of Adeyanju Olaniyan, Rachel O’Connor, and Timothy Balogun to the United States to face prosecution for an alleged fraud scheme involving the use of spoofed calls to obtain and resell medical supplies.

The court reviews the evidence, including voice identification, financial records, and circumstantial evidence, and finds that the evidence is sufficient to justify committal for extradition under the Extradition Act.

The court addresses the reliability of voice identification evidence and the legal standards for committal, ultimately granting the extradition applications.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate sentence for Ammaan Charley, who was convicted of multiple serious offences, including firearms, drug trafficking, robbery, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzes aggravating and mitigating factors, the impact of systemic racism, the harshness of pre-sentence custody, and the application of the totality principle.

The final sentence imposed is 16 years, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and includes ancillary orders such as a firearms prohibition and DNA order.

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

This decision addresses whether compelled statements made by a correctional officer during a disciplinary investigation can be used in a subsequent criminal trial.

The court held that the statements, made under statutory compulsion and in an adversarial context, are excluded from use for any purpose in the criminal proceedings, including for cross-examination on credibility.

The ruling applies the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. White and R. v. Nedelcu, emphasizing the protection against self-incrimination under section 7 of the Charter.

The decision addresses an application by Rutal Alott Hankey for a stay of proceedings under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

The court applies the framework from R. v. Jordan, analyzing periods of delay attributable to the defence, the Crown, and systemic factors, as well as the impact of exceptional circumstances.

The court finds that the net delay exceeds the 30-month ceiling even after accounting for exceptional circumstances, and grants a stay of proceedings.

The decision addresses an application by Deren Akyeam-Pong to exclude evidence seized during a search of a Toronto hotel room, arguing that the search warrants were issued without sufficient grounds and that his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter were breached.

The court reviews the adequacy of the Information to Obtain (ITO), the role of confidential informant privilege, and the sufficiency of judicial summaries of redacted material.

The court finds that the ITO, as supplemented by a judicial summary, provided sufficient credible and reliable evidence to support the issuance of the warrants.

The application is dismissed.

The court considered the appropriate scope of a mistrial declaration following a breach of the applicant’s right to full and complete disclosure under section 7 of the Charter.

The applicant sought a mistrial only on the counts for which he was convicted, while the Crown argued for a mistrial on all counts.

The court found that the undisclosed evidence would not have affected the acquittal on the third count and granted a mistrial only on counts 1 and 2, leaving the acquittal on count 3 undisturbed.