Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter for his role in a planned drug robbery that resulted in a shooting death.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the planned nature of the robbery and its impact on the victim's family, and mitigating factors, such as the early guilty plea, remorse, community support, educational achievements, and difficult upbringing.

A key distinguishing factor from a co-accused's sentence was the offender's lack of knowledge regarding the presence of a gun.

The court also heavily weighed the onerous pre-sentence custody conditions.

The offender was sentenced to 5.5 years imprisonment before statutory credit.

The defendant, Arielle Wall, was charged with impaired driving causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and having a blood alcohol concentration above 80 mg within two hours of operating a conveyance.

The court dismissed the dangerous driving charge due to a lack of evidence regarding the manner of driving.

For the remaining charges, the court relied on expert testimony regarding blood alcohol concentration and its effects on driving faculties.

The defendant's blood alcohol concentration was found to be between 103 and 107 mg/100mL at the time of the blood sample, and calculated to be between 120-127 mg/100mL at the time of the collision.

The court concluded that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, which contributed to the fatal collision.

The defendant was found guilty of impaired driving causing death and having a blood alcohol concentration above 80 mg, and not guilty of dangerous driving causing death.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on an impaired driving charge, which resulted from the trial judge's exclusion of breath test evidence.

The trial judge found two Charter breaches: arbitrary detention (s. 9) when the respondent was placed in a police vehicle for an ASD test without reasonable necessity, and unreasonable search/seizure (s. 7 and s. 8) due to video monitoring and recording of the respondent using the toilet in her cell, where the provided privacy gown was ineffective.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings of Charter violations, affirming that the increased restriction on liberty required reasonable necessity and that a reasonable expectation of privacy exists even in police cell toilets.

The court also upheld the exclusion of the breath test evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding a sufficient connection between the breaches and the evidence, and that the seriousness of the s. 8 breach warranted exclusion.

The Crown's appeal was dismissed.

Omar Mansour pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and breach of a bail condition.

The court considered aggravating factors, including carrying the weapon in public while on bail for drug trafficking and under house arrest, and mitigating factors such as his youth, guilty plea, remorse, family support, and productive use of time in custody.

The Crown sought a 39-month global sentence, while the defence sought 18-24 months (time served).

The judge imposed a global sentence of 36 months, with 32 months credit for time served (including harsh conditions), leaving 4 months to serve, plus three years probation.

A conditional sentence was rejected due to the seriousness of the conduct.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual interference against the defendant, D.C., involving his stepson, J.R., who was 10 years old at the time of the alleged assault.

J.R. was the sole witness, testifying via Zoom and through prior video statements to police.

The court assessed J.R.'s testimony, finding him believable and consistent on the core allegation.

However, the court noted a significant lack of specific details, several inconsistencies regarding minor facts, and a complete absence of corroborating evidence.

Applying the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required in criminal cases, the court concluded that despite J.R.'s apparent truthfulness, the evidence was insufficient to be sure that the assault occurred as alleged.

Consequently, D.C. was found not guilty.

The accused, charged with being an accessory to murder after the fact, brought a bail application under section 522(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused had shown cause why her detention was not justified under subsection 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

A Form 11 release order was issued with conditions, including a $2000 promise to pay, residing at a specific address, and no contact with named individuals.

The matter was adjourned to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The offender was found guilty of one global count of sexual assault and one global count of invitation to sexual touching involving his biological daughter, aged 11-14, over a four-year period.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the breach of trust and vulnerability of the victim.

The offender, a 65-year-old first-time offender, received a four-year concurrent sentence for sexual assault and two years for invitation to sexual touching, along with ancillary orders including a firearms prohibition, DNA order, no-contact order, and SOIRA registration.

The applicant, E.M., sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

E.M. was charged with 31 firearms-related offences and had been in custody for over a year.

The Crown conceded the material change but opposed release primarily on tertiary grounds.

The court found that E.M. had discharged her onus on the tertiary ground, considering the strong release plan, the circumstantial nature of some charges, the significant delay caused by the pandemic, and compassionate grounds as a mother of four young children.

The court emphasized that while the allegations were serious, the public's confidence in the administration of justice would not be undermined by release under strict conditions, especially given the public health implications of incarceration during the pandemic.

Prior to the commencement of a trial for sexual offences, the accused brought a constitutional challenge regarding the repeal of s. 634 of the Criminal Code, arguing that the repealing legislation should not apply retrospectively.

The court ruled that the accused was entitled to peremptory challenges.

The court subsequently noted that its decision was in accordance with the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Chouhan, which was released shortly after the trial concluded.

Steven Nowack, convicted of 12 counts of fraud over $19 million, applied for bail pending post-conviction motions and sentencing.

His previous bail was cancelled due to breaches and contempt findings.

Nowack argued for bail based on alleged violations of a court order regarding hospital transport and s. 7 Charter rights due to mistreatment by authorities and reckless driving.

The court found no violation of its order, deeming the delay in hospital transport reasonable given staffing issues and an acute medical emergency involving another prisoner.

The court also found no s. 7 Charter violation, dismissing Nowack's claims of abusive treatment and reckless driving as exaggerated and lacking credibility, particularly after reviewing video evidence.

The application for bail was dismissed, and the detention order remained in place, emphasizing the need to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the serious nature of the crime and Nowack's history of non-compliance with court orders.

The accused was convicted of three counts of sexual assault against young female adult voice students.

The assaults occurred under the guise of 'healing sessions' and involved significant intimate physical contact, including digital penetration and oral sex, exploiting a position of trust as a teacher and quasi-therapist.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 5 years, while the defence proposed 2 years plus probation.

The court considered aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, the devastating impact on victims, and the accused's lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's age (73 at sentencing) and lack of criminal record, though his age was given limited weight due to his vigor and the severity of the assaults.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years imprisonment, along with DNA order, lifetime SOIRA registration, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter due to 25.5 years of pre-charge delay and the loss of an evidence control sheet.

The court found that the police decision not to send the victim's t-shirt for forensic analysis in 1990 was not negligent or oppressive state conduct, as DNA testing capabilities were limited at the time and conventional serology would not have led to charges.

The court also found that the loss of the evidence control sheet did not constitute a Charter breach, as there was no air of reality that it would have materially assisted the defence.

The application for a stay was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The defendant, Anthony Botelho, was charged with dangerous driving while street racing causing death.

The Crown alleged that Botelho's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care and caused the victim's death.

The defence argued that the driving did not rise to the level of dangerous driving.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Botelho was operating a vehicle in a race or that his driving was dangerous and caused the victim's death.

The court highlighted issues with witness reliability, the inadmissibility of certain expert testimony, and the unreliability of video-based speed calculations, noting a significant evidentiary gap due to the police's failure to retrieve Event Data Recorder (EDR) information.

Botelho was acquitted.

The accused, Tiffany Clarke, was charged with one count of aggravated assault following an altercation outside a nightclub where the complainant sustained seven stab wounds.

The central issues were whether Clarke inflicted the wounds and, if so, whether she acted in self-defence.

The court found that the Crown did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Clarke inflicted the stab wounds, noting the circumstantial nature of the evidence and the possibility that the complainant was stabbed earlier in the altercation by another individual.

Furthermore, even if Clarke had inflicted the wounds, the court was not satisfied that the Crown disproved self-defence, given the complainant's aggressive actions.

Clarke was found not guilty.

The accused, Jesse French, was charged with aggravated assault and robbery following a brutal attack on Bryan Lavoie, which resulted in the loss of Mr. Lavoie's left eye.

The Crown's case relied on Mr. Lavoie's identification and surveillance video.

The defence challenged the identification, citing inconsistencies in Mr. Lavoie's testimony and contradictions with prior statements and video evidence.

The court found Mr. Lavoie's evidence unreliable due to intoxication, trauma, and discrepancies with prior statements and video footage.

While the accused's post-offence conduct of attempting to clean blood from the scene was noted, it was deemed insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without corroborating evidence of direct involvement in the assault.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The accused applied for certiorari to quash a preliminary inquiry committal for first degree murder on the basis that the Crown had not led evidence capable of supporting the predicate offence of sexual assault required under s. 231(5)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The evidence established that the accused’s semen was found in the deceased’s mouth and that the deceased died from neck compression during a violent encounter in her apartment.

The court held that while there was evidence of both a sexual act and a homicide, there was no evidence linking the sexual act to non-consensual activity or establishing that the death occurred while committing or attempting to commit sexual assault.

The preliminary inquiry judge’s inference that the sexual activity was non-consensual improperly conflated the violent killing with the earlier sexual act and relied on speculation rather than evidence.

The committal for first degree murder was therefore quashed, but the accused was ordered to stand trial for second degree murder.

The accused was convicted by a jury of assault causing bodily harm and assault arising from a violent attack on a vulnerable sex trade worker after she refused to continue a sexual act.

The assault involved choking, stomping, and dragging the complainant, causing bodily harm but no permanent injuries.

At sentencing, the court considered aggravating factors including the brutality of the assault and the complainant’s vulnerability, as well as mitigating factors including the accused’s lack of criminal record, age, disability, language barriers, and social isolation.

The court concluded that the mitigating factors outweighed the aggravating factors and that specific deterrence was not a significant concern.

A suspended sentence with probation was imposed instead of incarceration.

In a second‑degree murder trial, the Crown sought to introduce multiple autopsy photographs depicting the deceased’s injuries.

The defence objected, arguing the photographs were highly graphic and unnecessary given admissions regarding the cause of death, the injuries, and the expert pathologist’s conclusions.

Applying the probative value versus prejudicial effect analysis described in R. v. P.(R.) and R. v. Handy, the court held that several close‑up images of the head and face were extremely graphic and their probative value was diminished by the defence’s proposed admissions.

Those photographs were excluded, while less prejudicial images illustrating the body’s condition and certain injuries were admitted to assist the pathologist’s testimony.

The ruling balanced the evidentiary value of visual evidence against the risk of reasoning prejudice for the jury.

The Crown applied to the Superior Court for a review of a judicial interim release order that granted bail to the accused with two parental sureties.

The accused faced multiple assault charges against an intimate partner and an alleged breach of a conditional sentence order.

The Crown argued that the justice of the peace erred in approving the parents as sureties because they had previously been aware of the accused’s drug use and had provided medication during withdrawal.

The reviewing judge held that the proper standard was whether the justice of the peace made an error in law, not whether another decision-maker might have reached a different conclusion.

Finding that the justice of the peace carefully assessed the evidence, including a Gladue report and the suitability of the sureties, the court concluded that no legal error occurred and declined to interfere with the bail order.

During a jury trial for criminal negligence causing bodily harm and failing to stop, the defence brought a motion requesting that the jury be permitted to conduct a view of the scene depicted in surveillance footage.

Both parties agreed that the wide-angle lens used in the video distorted distances and perspectives, potentially affecting the jury’s understanding of the evidence.

The court considered the authority under s. 652 of the Criminal Code and determined that a view may be ordered where it assists the jury in understanding the evidence, though it is not itself evidence.

The judge concluded that a view of the gas bar where the incident occurred would assist the jury and ordered it with detailed logistical and non‑communication safeguards.

A request to include a nearby gas station related to a different offence was denied.