Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The accused, A.M., pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code involving an 11-year-old victim.

The assaults occurred multiple times over five months, were penetrative, and caused the victim pain and significant emotional and psychological harm, including self-harm and suicidal thoughts.

The accused was in a position of trust.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought two years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, considering aggravating factors such as the victim's age, abuse of trust, and severe impact, and mitigating factors including the accused's lack of prior criminal record and guilty plea.

The court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment, along with various ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, Section 161 order, non-communication order, and SOIRA order.

The accused, charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay was 1,427 days (approximately 47 months).

The primary issue was whether certain periods of delay should be attributed to the defence, including adjournments for bail, a change of election to the Ontario Court of Justice, and a subsequent re-election to the Superior Court of Justice.

The court found that while the defence was responsible for some delay, the net delay was 1,027 days (approximately 34 months), which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

As the Crown did not rely on any exceptional circumstances, the court found a violation of s. 11(b) and entered a stay of proceedings.

The accused, a spokesperson for the 'Farfadaas' group, was charged with mischief and counselling to commit mischief in relation to the 'Freedom Convoy' protests in downtown Ottawa in early 2022.

The court found that the prolonged occupation, noise, and disruption significantly interfered with the lawful use and enjoyment of property by Ottawa residents and businesses, constituting mischief under s. 430 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the defence of officially induced error, finding that police inaction did not amount to permission.

The accused was found guilty of mischief, as his actions and communications actively encouraged and supported the illegal occupation.

The accused, Aysar Younes, faced charges of operating a conveyance causing death while impaired/over 80 and dangerous operation causing death.

This ruling addressed two Crown applications: to declare a statement made by Younes to police voluntary, and to determine the admissibility of evidence from a friend regarding the normality of cocaine use in their social group.

The court found the statement voluntary for cross-examination purposes, as conceded by the defence.

However, the court dismissed the Crown's application to admit evidence about the normality of cocaine use, finding its probative value low and the risk of moral prejudice high, particularly in a jury trial.

Emron Constantine applied for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of his s.11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time, as the total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court found a total delay of 1689 days.

After deducting 210 days for COVID-19 related delays and 400 days for defence delay, the net delay was 1079 days (approximately 35.9 months), which still exceeded the 30-month ceiling.

The court determined that a significant portion of the delay (236 days) was due to a lack of judicial resources and judicial unavailability, which was not an exceptional circumstance attributable to the Crown or defence.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted, and the charges were stayed.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder for the 1983 killings of two women.

The murders remained unsolved for decades until genetic genealogy identified the offender.

The Crown sought a 22-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 18 years.

The court considered the extreme gravity of the offences, the vulnerability of the victims, and the brutal nature of the killings, alongside Gladue factors and the offender's guilty pleas.

The court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 21 years.

The accused, Pritpal Singh, was tried for multiple drug trafficking and possession offences alongside a Garofoli application challenging several search warrants.

The court dismissed the majority of the Garofoli application, finding that the accused did not have standing to seek excision of evidence obtained through the breach of a third party's Charter rights, and that the Information to Obtain (ITO) established reasonable grounds for most of the warrants.

Based on an Agreed Statement of Fact, the court found the accused guilty of trafficking heroin, possession of heroin and opium for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime, relying on circumstantial evidence and the doctrine of constructive possession.

The co-accused daughter was acquitted at the Crown's request.

The offender was convicted by a jury of kidnapping and overcoming resistance after orchestrating a sophisticated plot to abduct a foreign university student for ransom.

The victim was taken from his home, drugged, bound, and held captive for 13 days before being rescued by police.

The court sentenced the offender, who acted as the mastermind, to 20 years imprisonment for kidnapping and a concurrent 3 years for overcoming resistance, noting the extreme gravity of the offence and the paramount need for denunciation and deterrence.

The court declined to impose consecutive sentences based on the totality principle and declined to restrict parole eligibility.

The accused was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual abuse, including incest and sexual interference, against his biological daughter when she was between 6 and 12 years old.

The court considered the profound impact on the victim and the accused's prior conviction for sexual interference against his stepdaughter.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years in custody, less pre-sentence custody credit, along with various ancillary orders including a life-time SOIRA order and weapons prohibition.

The offender was sentenced for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and unauthorized possession of a firearm while subject to a prohibition order, having been acquitted of attempted murder based on self-defence.

The court considered the offender's lived experiences with anti-Black racism, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions including COVID-19 lockdowns, and his lack of prior firearm convictions.

A total sentence of 40 months was imposed, reduced to 15 months remaining after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions.

The accused, charged with drug and firearms offences following a traffic stop, brought an application for the production of police records relating to the arresting officers' prior traffic stops and training materials.

The accused argued the records were relevant to an anticipated Charter challenge alleging racial profiling and an unlawful search.

The court dismissed the application, finding the records were neither first-party disclosure as they were not fruits of the investigation, nor subject to third-party production as the accused failed to establish their likely relevance beyond mere speculation.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for killing his grandfather using a hammer and a dog leash.

The Crown sought a 17-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 years.

The court considered the offender's untreated mental health issues, including schizophrenia, alongside the brutal and unprovoked nature of the attack.

Balancing the aggravating factors and the jury's recommendations against the mitigating factors, the court set the period of parole ineligibility at 15 years.

The three accused were charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences after police executed a search warrant at an apartment and found large quantities of drugs and two handguns.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance showing the accused coming and going from the building, and the presence of two of the accused in the apartment during the raid.

The court found that while the evidence established the apartment was a stash house, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the contraband, as there was a reasonable alternative inference that the drugs and guns belonged exclusively to the tenant of the apartment.

This decision provides reasons for the sentencing of three individuals convicted in the murder of Theepa Seevaratnam and attempted murder of Leelavathi Seevaratnam.

Steadley Kerr and Vijendran Balasubramaniam were convicted of first-degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder.

Gary Samuel was convicted of manslaughter.

The court applied sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence, considering aggravating factors such as firearm involvement, planning, the domestic nature of the murder, and the vulnerability of the victims.

Mitigating factors, such as lack of criminal record and rehabilitative potential for some offenders, and harsh presentence custody conditions, were also considered.

Sentences included life imprisonment for murder and concurrent terms for conspiracy and attempted murder, along with ancillary orders.

The appellant appealed his conviction for an "over 80" offence, alleging a s. 9 Charter violation (arbitrary detention/overholding) and a s. 11(b) Charter violation (unreasonable delay).

The court found a s. 9 breach due to police "benign neglect" in assessing continued detention but determined that breath samples should not be excluded under s. 24(2) as the breach was too remote from the evidence gathering.

However, the court found a s. 11(b) breach, concluding that judicial deliberation time for interlocutory motions counts towards the Jordan ceiling, and the net delay of 20.5 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling without exceptional circumstances.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

B.H., charged with sexual assault and other offences, brought a motion for directions to determine if voicemail messages left by the complainant for him were "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The court analyzed whether the complainant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in these messages, considering the nature of the information and the context of their creation.

The court concluded that the complainant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and therefore the messages were not "records" requiring an application under ss. 278.93 and 278.94 for admission at trial.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, E.A., on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred by effectively applying a defence of automatism without proper analysis and by conceptualizing the offences as specific intent.

The Superior Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not rely on automatism but rather concluded that the Crown failed to prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt due to vagueness in the complainant's evidence and the possibility that the touching was accidental while the respondent was asleep or half-asleep.

The court also found no error in the trial judge's understanding of the offences as general intent.

The applicant sought a bail review after being denied bail by a Justice of the Peace following charges related to a loaded firearm found in her car.

The applicant argued errors in the initial decision and a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a new release plan.

The Crown conceded the pandemic as a material change, allowing a de novo assessment.

The court considered the applicant's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, the seriousness of the current charges (including being in breach of a conditional sentence at the time of the offence), and the inadequacy of the proposed surety and release plan.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet her onus on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, and that releasing her would undermine confidence in the administration of justice, even considering the pandemic.

During a trial for first degree murder, the applicant sought to preclude the Crown from asking the principal witness to identify him in the dock.

The applicant argued the identification had trifling probative value and was dangerously prejudicial because the witness was intoxicated and the prior photo identification was flawed.

The court dismissed the application, holding that in-dock identifications are presumptively admissible and that any frailties in the evidence are matters of weight for the jury to assess following cross-examination and proper jury instructions.

David Persaud appealed his conviction for impaired driving.

The trial judge had conducted a blended trial and Charter application, granting a s. 10(b) application but dismissing a s. 8 application, and then convicting Persaud.

The appeal court found that the trial judge conflated s. 8 Charter issues with the trial proper, provided insufficient reasons for conviction, and improperly used evidence admissible only for the Charter application to convict on the substantive charge.

The court dismissed grounds related to unreasonable verdict and a new ground raised on appeal.

Ultimately, the conviction could not stand due to significant flaws in the trial judge's reasoning, leading to an order for a new trial on the impaired driving charge.