Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The respondent was convicted after a jury trial of assault by choking, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment against the victim.

He was acquitted of uttering a threat to cause death.

The Crown sought judicial determination of facts for sentencing purposes and for a s. 752.1 assessment.

The respondent challenged the credibility and reliability of the victim's evidence on several material points, including who initiated contact, the frequency of meetings, and who informed the respondent of his mother's death.

The court conducted a thorough credibility assessment of both witnesses and made findings on the disputed facts, ultimately accepting the victim's evidence as more reliable and credible despite some inconsistencies.

The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of obtaining a material benefit from the sale of sexual services, contrary to s. 286.2(1) of the Criminal Code.

Involvement spanned from September 2018 to March 2020, facilitating a family member's human trafficking activities by managing finances, booking hotel rooms, and transporting victims.

The court considered aggravating factors including the number of victims, profound impact, duration of the offence, and the enabling role, and mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, first-time offender status, and compliance with bail.

The court rejected the claim of believing prostitution was legal and the lack of remorse for victims.

A two-year less one-day conditional sentence was imposed, along with two years of probation and a DNA order, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while allowing for community service given the lower moral culpability compared to the principal offender.

The defendant, Bardott Walters, was charged with three counts of assault against her two daughters and husband.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainants' testimony, noting a strong motive to fabricate due to ongoing acrimonious family law proceedings and evidence of collusion among the complainants.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the defendant's acquittal on all counts.

The accused, Shanice Wynter, brought an application for an order allowing her counsel to make an opening address immediately after the Crown’s opening address in a joint criminal trial for first-degree murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown opposed, and the co-accused did not join the application.

The court, exercising judicial discretion, determined that an early defence opening is only permissible in special or exceptional circumstances.

Considering factors such as the trial's length and complexity, but also the "all or none" approach for co-accused in joint trials, the court dismissed the application.

It concluded that special or exceptional circumstances were not present and that following the procedure outlined in s. 651 of the Criminal Code was the fairest course of action.

The applicant, a former high-ranking civilian member of the RCMP charged with serious national security offences under the Security of Information Act, sought a bail review after spending over three years in pre-trial custody.

Following the dismissal of four of the ten charges against him, the court found a material change in circumstances.

The court concluded that the applicant met his onus on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, noting that the passage of time and strict proposed conditions mitigated the risks of flight, reoffending, and loss of public confidence.

The application was granted, and the applicant was released on strict conditions including house arrest and GPS monitoring.

This ruling concerns the admissibility of a post-arrest statement made by the accused, charged with second-degree murder, to the police.

The Crown sought to admit the statement for cross-examination, while the accused sought to exclude it, alleging violations of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel and that the statement was involuntary due to a lack of operating mind and an oppressive atmosphere (including the absence of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic).

The court found no Charter violation, determining that delays in providing counsel were justified by safety and practical considerations, and that the accused's repeated requests for counsel during the interview did not trigger a right to a second consultation under the *Sinclair* framework.

The court also concluded that the accused possessed an operating mind and that the interview conditions, including the lack of masks, did not create an oppressive atmosphere given the prevailing public health understanding at the time.

The statement was deemed voluntary and admissible for cross-examination, though specific portions where the accused asserted his right to silence or requested counsel were deemed inadmissible for direct cross-examination.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The trial judge had excluded evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding breaches of the respondent's s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The respondent was initially arrested for driving while prohibited, but the officer subsequently began an impaired driving investigation without informing the respondent of the change in focus and delayed providing rights to counsel for four and a half minutes while asking incriminating questions.

The Superior Court of Justice found no error of law in the trial judge's findings of Charter breaches and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing the trial judge erred by misstating the applicability of the second stage of the W.(D.) test and by applying uneven scrutiny to the evidence of the complainant and another witness.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that despite the trial judge's initial misstatement regarding W.(D.), her reasons as a whole demonstrated a proper application of the burden of proof to the credibility assessment.

The court also found no evidence of uneven scrutiny, as the trial judge's credibility findings were reasonable and supported by the record.

The accused applied for judicial interim release after being charged with firearms and drug offences while already on bail for similar charges.

The accused proposed a new release plan involving house arrest, a GPS ankle bracelet, and his girlfriend as a surety.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused had previously breached his bail conditions flagrantly and had shown a lack of respect for the proposed surety by taking her car without her knowledge.

The court concluded that GPS monitoring is reactionary and insufficient to prevent further offences, justifying detention on the secondary ground.

The young person, convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to seven years (four in secure custody, three under conditional supervision), appeared for a mandatory annual review of his sentence under s. 94(1) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The young person sought early release to conditional supervision in the community, citing his progress in custody.

The court acknowledged the young person's academic and behavioural improvements but found that he remained in the early stages of therapeutic gain and that his progress was insufficient to justify a change in sentence.

Balancing the needs of the young person with the interests of society, the court confirmed the original sentence, emphasizing the need for continued rehabilitation and accountability for the serious nature of the offence.

The defence brought a pre-trial application seeking an order to make an opening statement to the jury immediately after the Crown's opening address, rather than at the close of the Crown's case.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing the discretion should not be exercised, especially since the defence would not undertake to call evidence.

The court balanced the risks of an early statement against fairness issues and the special circumstances of the case, including the defence's intention to concede guilt on a secondary count to focus the jury on the primary count of second-degree murder.

The court granted the application, finding an early, targeted opening by the defence appropriate.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's ruling that the mandatory victim surcharge under section 737 of the Criminal Code violated section 7 of the Charter.

The respondents were individuals of limited financial means who had pleaded guilty to various offences.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the victim surcharge is a consequence of conviction rather than a fine or punishment.

The court further held that the surcharge is not grossly disproportionate, as offenders can be granted significant time to pay.

The victim surcharges were imposed on all respondents with two years to pay.

During a jury trial for attempted murder, the accused applied for a stay of proceedings after police lost the photograph used in the initial photo line-up in which the victim identified him.

The court found that the police negligently failed to preserve the photograph, breaching the Crown’s disclosure obligations and the accused’s s. 7 Charter right to make full answer and defence.

However, the court held that the breach did not cause irreparable prejudice because a video recording of the photo line-up and the remaining photographs allowed the defence to challenge the reliability of the identification evidence.

The court concluded that the evidentiary deficiencies actually weakened the prosecution’s case before the jury.

A stay of proceedings was therefore not warranted.

In a judge-alone criminal trial for sexual assault and common assault, the court addressed a potential breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn after the defence introduced contradictory evidence without cross-examining the complainant on key matters.

The judge reviewed governing authorities regarding the obligation to confront witnesses with allegations that contradict their testimony and the discretionary remedies available where the rule is breached.

The defence acknowledged that certain material inconsistencies had not been put to the complainant during cross-examination.

Considering fairness to the witness and the integrity of the fact‑finding process, the court determined that recalling the complainant for limited additional cross-examination was the appropriate remedy.

The young person applicant, charged with first degree murder alongside three co-accused, applied for a directed verdict on the basis of insufficient evidence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including text messages, video surveillance, and the applicant's flight from the scene, to establish the applicant's participation in a planned and deliberate murder.

The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could return a verdict of guilty.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion for directions on whether the jury should be instructed on self-defence using the former or newly amended provisions of the Criminal Code.

The alleged offence occurred before the Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act came into force.

The court held that the presumption against retrospective application of legislation affecting substantive rights was rebutted.

The new provisions were intended to clarify and simplify the law, providing a benefit to claimants, and therefore apply retrospectively to the applicant's trial.

The offender was found guilty of second-degree murder for stabbing his mother to death.

The Crown sought a 15-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought the minimum 10 years.

The court considered the profound breach of trust in a domestic relationship, the brutal nature of the attack involving multiple weapons, and the offender's criminal record.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 15 years.

The United States of America sought the extradition of the respondent for the offence of child luring.

The perpetrator communicated with a 17-year-old female online and coerced her into engaging in sexual activity with her 13-year-old sister over a Skype video call.

The communications were traced to an IP address assigned to the respondent at the relevant time.

The court found that the IP subscriber information provided a sufficient foundation for a reliable inference that the respondent was the perpetrator, satisfying the test for committal under the Extradition Act.

The application for committal was granted.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving, fleeing police, and assaulting a police officer, arguing that the trial judge's finding on identity was unreasonable.

The sole issue at trial was whether the appellant was the driver of the ATV involved in the incident.

The trial judge relied on the eyewitness identification by a police officer who had prior familiarity with the appellant and observed him face-to-face during the altercation.

The Superior Court of Justice reviewed the evidence and the trial judge's application of the principles regarding eyewitness identification.

The court found that the trial judge properly assessed the reliability of the identification evidence and that the verdict was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of attempted arson and pleaded guilty to two counts of mischief for his participation in vandalizing and attempting to set fire to police cruisers during the G20 Summit riots in Toronto.

The Crown sought a 20-24 month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a 6-9 month conditional sentence.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate due to the accused's lack of insight, his conduct while on bail, and the paramount need for denunciation and general deterrence for public riot offences.

The accused was sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment (less 2 months' credit for bail conditions), followed by 3 years' probation, 150 hours of community service, and a restitution order of $100 per month.