Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - SCJ

Brandon Sero and Marie Miller were charged with drug trafficking offences following a search warrant executed on February 8, 2024.

Sero brought a Charter application under section 24(2) to exclude evidence seized during the search, arguing the warrant was invalid due to breaches of section 8 rights.

The applicant challenged the validity of the warrant, claiming the Information to Obtain failed to disclose reasonable and probable grounds and that confidential source information was insufficiently credible, compelling, and corroborated.

The court found the warrant was valid despite material omissions from the ITO regarding the background and credentials of confidential sources.

The court applied the Garofoli process to manage disclosure while protecting informer privilege and ultimately dismissed the Charter application, finding the evidence admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The applicant brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to exclude evidence pursuant to sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant was charged with possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that the redacted Information to Obtain could not support the authorization and sought to have the court review the unredacted material.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient information upon which the issuing justice could have authorized the search, and therefore no section 8 Charter breach occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with second-degree murder in the shooting death of Antoine Bouchard on January 23, 2022, in Thunder Bay.

The accused admitted to shooting the victim but claimed self-defence, asserting that the victim and two others were attempting to rob him while armed.

The Crown presented forensic evidence, including post-mortem examination findings and ballistics analysis.

Key witnesses included the alleged robbers and the accused.

The court found that the accused reasonably believed force was imminent, acted for the purpose of self-defence, and that his response was proportional to the threat faced.

The accused was acquitted of second-degree murder.

The Attorney General of Canada applied for a further detention order under section 490(3) of the Criminal Code in relation to items seized from the respondent, Mohammed Ehteshamul Huq, during an investigation into alleged fraud and related offences involving the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS).

The court reviewed the complexity of the investigation, the progress made, and the need for continued detention.

While recognizing the investigation's complexity, the court limited the further detention period to five months, until April 3, 2025, rather than the nine or twelve months sought by the applicant.

The accused, Norbert Budai, was charged with first-degree murder in the death of his estranged wife, Henrietta Viski, who died after being doused with gasoline and set on fire.

Budai pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder but guilty to second-degree murder, which the Crown did not accept.

The court, sitting without a jury, found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate, rejecting the defence's argument that Budai's consumption of alcohol and fentanyl limited his capacity to plan and deliberate.

Budai was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The accused applied for a detention review after being arrested on new charges while on a release order.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the accused's criminal record, substance abuse issues, and the serious nature of the allegations.

The defence proposed a comprehensive release plan involving residence with sureties in a remote Alberta camp with strict conditions.

The court, applying the principles from R. v. Myers, R. v. Antic, and R. v. St-Cloud, found that the proposed plan met the accused's onus on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court emphasized the principle of restraint and the proportionality of continued detention to a realistic sentence, especially given the accused's mental health issues and time already served.

The accused was released on the proposed terms.

The accused, Danik Ballabey, applied for a review of a detention order made by a Justice of the Peace, who had found his detention necessary on tertiary grounds.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to the accused's lengthy pretrial custody (over 15 months), which had reached a "time served" position relative to a potential resolution proposal.

Despite the seriousness of the charges (drug trafficking and possession of a modified, prohibited firearm), the court concluded that the continued detention of a presumptively innocent individual to a "time served" disposition erodes public confidence in the judicial interim release regime.

The bail review was granted, and the accused was released on a recognizance with conditions, including house arrest supervised by five sureties.

This is a bail review application under s.520 of the Criminal Code, seeking to overturn a detention order.

The applicant argued for a material change in circumstances based on a proposed change in suretyship, an increased surety commitment, and the addition of electronic monitoring.

The court found that the electronic monitoring was not a material change and that the proposed new surety, despite being more senior, was not in a better position to supervise than previous sureties.

The court concluded that the changes did not address the original reason for detention, which was a loss of public confidence in the administration of justice due to the applicant's repeated breaches of release conditions.

The application was dismissed.

Cole Kieley sought a bail review of two detention orders related to firearms charges in Newmarket and Toronto, including attempt murder.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and court adjournments.

The court found Kieley met the onus on the secondary ground but failed on the tertiary ground, citing the seriousness of the alleged offences (a public gun battle), the fact they were committed while on prior bail for a similar offence, and the potential loss of public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and Kieley remained detained.

M.M. sought a bail review of a detention order, arguing a material change in circumstances due to COVID-19 and his underlying health conditions.

The applicant, charged with multiple drug trafficking and compliance offences, proposed a release plan with a surety (K.D.) and GPS monitoring.

The court accepted the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change but ultimately found the proposed surety unsuitable due to a shared history of drug addiction with the applicant, which jeopardized the applicant's sobriety and the plan's ability to mitigate secondary grounds risks.

The court also considered the strong Crown's case and the public's confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained on secondary and tertiary grounds.

This is a detention review application under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant, previously detained on tertiary grounds, sought release arguing errors of law by the Justice of the Peace and material changes in circumstances, including a new electronic monitoring plan and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found no error of law but agreed that the new monitoring system and the pandemic constituted material changes.

Applying s. 515(10) criteria, the court found detention was not required on secondary grounds due to the applicant's lack of criminal record and stable employment, and that the proposed restrictive conditions and electronic monitoring would manage public safety risks.

While the tertiary grounds initially weighed heavily for detention given the serious charges and strong Crown case, the court balanced these with the improved release plan, the general vulnerability of inmates to COVID-19, and trial delays.

Ultimately, the court concluded that detention was not necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice and ordered the applicant's release on a substantial recognizance with strict conditions.

The accused, Jason Cunningham, sought a detention review under s. 525 and a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code of Canada, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic and a new release plan warranted his release pending trial.

The court acknowledged COVID-19 as a material change in circumstances but dismissed both applications.

The judge found that the accused's detention remained necessary on secondary grounds due to a substantial likelihood of re-offending, given his probable involvement in the drug trade, a recent criminal record for violence, and poor self-control.

Detention was also necessary on tertiary grounds to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, considering the seriousness of the firearms and drug-related charges and the strength of the Crown's case, even when factoring in pandemic-related concerns.

Mr. Raza, who fled the United States after pleading guilty to identity theft and aggravated identity theft, sought bail in Canada on an Extradition Act proceeding.

He argued that a release plan mitigated flight risk and cited health issues, including a vulnerable immune system, making him susceptible to Covid-19.

The court dismissed the bail application, finding an overwhelming flight risk due to his prior escape, sophisticated planning, and lack of ties in Canada.

The proposed sureties were deemed inadequate.

While acknowledging Covid-19 as a factor, the court found insufficient evidence of Mr. Raza's particular vulnerability or that incarceration posed a higher risk than release, especially given measures taken by correctional institutions.

Detention was also deemed necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and the strength of the prosecution's case.

The accused, Jormond Fraser, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, following two previous detention orders.

The application cited a material change in circumstances due to a new surety, the proposed use of a GPS monitoring bracelet, and the elevated health risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic within the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre, particularly given Fraser's history of leukemia.

The court acknowledged the COVID-19 pandemic as a material change allowing a de novo hearing and a relevant factor in assessing the tertiary ground for bail.

However, the proposed surety was deemed unsuitable due to a past failure to report a breach of conditions and current mental health challenges, raising concerns about her ability to supervise effectively.

Despite the increased risk of infection in custody and Fraser's expressed fear, his extensive criminal record, including numerous convictions for failing to comply with court orders and violence against women, led the court to conclude that the proposed bail plan was insufficient to manage the substantial likelihood of him committing further offences.

The bail review was dismissed, and the detention order remained undisturbed.

The accused sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, 48 years old with 84 prior convictions including breaches of recognizance and escapes, was found in possession of significant quantities of crystal methamphetamine, crack cocaine, powder cocaine, and fentanyl, along with drug paraphernalia.

The court considered the strong Crown case, the accused's extensive criminal record, and the unsuitability of the proposed surety.

Despite potential trial delays due to the pandemic and the prospect of COVID-19 in detention, the court found continued detention necessary on the secondary ground due to the high risk of reoffending and lack of respect for court orders.

The bail review was dismissed.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained by a Justice of the Peace.

The reviewing judge found that the Justice of the Peace erred in law by not properly applying the "ladder principle" from R. v. Antic and by failing to provide sufficient reasons for rejecting less onerous forms of release, effectively imposing a reverse onus on the applicant.

The judge considered the release de novo and granted bail with enhanced community supervision conditions through the Toronto Bail Program, finding that the proposed plan adequately addressed primary and secondary ground concerns despite the applicant's lengthy criminal record and mental health issues.

The applicant, Athrin Deko, sought a bail review after being detained on gun and drug charges.

The court addressed the threshold question of whether sufficient grounds existed for a de novo review of his detention under R. v. St-Cloud.

The applicant argued the Justice of the Peace misapprehended the evidence regarding his proposed bail plan, specifically the supervision arrangements by his parents who worked opposite shifts.

The court found that the Justice of the Peace, likely influenced by Crown counsel, misunderstood the details of the bail plan, leading to an erroneous conclusion about the adequacy of supervision.

This material misapprehension of evidence was deemed to satisfy the St-Cloud threshold for review, impacting both secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The matter was adjourned for a full bail review hearing.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on tertiary grounds for attempting to possess and import a firearm.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, specifically the tendering of a new surety (applicant's brother) and electronic monitoring.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed changes did not constitute a material change relevant to the original reasons for detention, which focused on the strength and seriousness of the case and the need to maintain public faith in the administration of justice.

The applicant, Ramy Musa, sought a de novo bail review after being detained on the tertiary ground for serious drug trafficking and firearms offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including a revised, highly stringent release plan and a re-evaluation of the carfentanil's street value, which permitted a de novo hearing.

However, after considering the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the extreme seriousness of the offences (possession of multiple loaded unauthorized firearms and trafficking lethal carfentanil), the circumstances of the commission, and the potential for a lengthy penitentiary term, the court concluded that releasing the applicant would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

Despite a strong proposed bail plan and lack of criminal record, the application for judicial interim release was dismissed, and the detention order maintained.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, sought release from custody pending trial.

The court assessed the proposed release plan, which included a surety (the accused's mother) and electronic monitoring, against the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention under the Criminal Code.

The court found the surety to be unreliable due to past inability to control the accused and a lack of understanding regarding previous bail conditions.

The electronic monitoring was deemed insufficient given the weak surety.

The court concluded that the accused failed to demonstrate that his detention was not necessary for public protection or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, particularly given the serious and violent nature of the alleged offence and the apparent strength of the prosecution's case.

Bail was denied.