Scott Arnold

The parties separated following a tumultuous marriage marked by allegations of intimate partner violence.

The respondent was criminally charged and repeatedly breached bail conditions by contacting the applicant, leading to a 60-day jail sentence.

The respondent brought a motion for supervised parenting time, while the applicant sought a section 30 assessment before any parenting time occurred.

The court ordered a section 30 assessment to be conducted by a psychologist, funded initially from the parties' joint line of credit.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion for supervised parenting time, finding it contrary to the children's best interests given the respondent's ongoing coercive conduct, indirect attempts to contact the applicant, and the children's current behavioral challenges.

The accused, an inmate at the Toronto South Detention Centre, was charged with manslaughter after a physical altercation with his 69-year-old cellmate.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the victim spilled water on him and allegedly touched him sexually.

The court rejected the sexual assault allegation and found the accused's response—delivering multiple blows that caused catastrophic facial and brain injuries—was disproportionate and unreasonable.

The court concluded the assault was a significant contributing cause of death and found the accused guilty of manslaughter.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to manslaughter arising from a prolonged group beating at a drug-fuelled gathering in which a third participant inflicted catastrophic hammer blows.

The court held that the offenders' moral culpability was high and that the actus reus and mens rea were at the upper end of manslaughter, closer to murder than negligence, warranting a sentence within the 8-to-12-year range for manslaughter with aggravating features.

Guilty pleas, remorse, first-offender status, addiction, housing insecurity, rehabilitative prospects, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions mitigated sentence but did not displace denunciation and deterrence as the primary objectives.

The court imposed 8.5-year penitentiary terms less enhanced pre-sentence custody, with lifetime firearms prohibitions and DNA orders.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of police conduct during the execution of search warrants at his residence and the subsequent search of his cellular phone.

The court found multiple violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including: an unreasonable manner of executing the search warrant at the residence; a warrantless search of the cellular phone; execution of a phone search warrant outside its authorized time frame; and failure to provide the accused with his right to counsel immediately upon arrest.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Charmare Crawford pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery with a firearm and two counts of wearing a disguise with intent, and admitted to two further robberies.

The sentencing judge expressed concern that the initial sentencing positions of five to six years were unfit, especially considering serious drug offences originally read in under the Criminal Code.

After the parties withdrew the drug offences from the court's consideration, the judge determined a fit global sentence of seven and a half years.

This sentence was reduced by six months to mitigate the exceptionally harsh lockdown conditions the accused endured in provincial remand, and further reduced by credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving a net sentence of five years and nine months.

The accused, Daniel Bogdanic, was charged with "Over 80" under the Criminal Code.

He alleged two breaches of his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel: first, that the arresting officer, Sgt. Brett Moore, failed to advise him of his rights "without delay" by prioritizing note-taking and other non-urgent matters; and second, that Sgt. Moore failed to ensure he understood his right to counsel of choice.

The court found that the "without delay" requirement was breached due to the officer's erroneous understanding and prioritization of other tasks, which was deemed a serious and potentially systemic violation.

However, the court found no breach regarding the understanding of the right to counsel, as the accused had understood his options but chose to defer.

Applying the s. 24(2) Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the breath samples, despite their reliability and importance to the Crown's case, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the seriousness and systemic nature of the Charter breach and its moderate impact on the accused's interests.

Consequently, the breath samples were excluded, leading to a finding of not guilty.

The respondent father was successful in obtaining a temporary order for equal parenting time and sought costs of the motion.

The father had made an offer to settle for equal parenting time, while the applicant mother's offers were premised on unequal parenting time.

The court awarded the father costs of $3,400, representing approximately 70% of his actual costs, noting his reasonable offers to settle.

The court also ordered that the mother's payment of costs be deferred pending the determination of her claim for child support arrears.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final consent order regarding parenting time.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the mother unilaterally reduced the respondent father's parenting time to weekends.

The father sought a temporary order returning to the pre-pandemic equal parenting schedule.

The mother opposed, citing the children's special needs and their recent progress at school.

The court granted the father's request for equal parenting time, finding it in the children's best interests, but granted the mother temporary sole responsibility for educational and health care decisions to reduce conflict.

The applicant, D.P., sought a review of a detention order for multiple sexual assault charges.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, requiring a de novo review of the detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the proposed bail plan, even with electronic monitoring and increased surety, insufficient to address public safety concerns given the nature of the alleged serial sexual assaults and the sureties' inability to supervise.

The court also found that releasing the applicant would erode public confidence in the administration of justice due to the gravity of the offences, the strong Crown case, and the horrifying circumstances, despite the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on detention centers.

The application for review of the detention order was dismissed.

The applicant, P.S., sought a review of a detention order.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, allowing for a de novo bail review.

The applicant proposed a new release plan with three sureties, strict house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court distinguished the case from R. v. Hastings, noting the applicant's lack of criminal record, time spent in custody, and the general increased risk of COVID-19 in detention facilities.

The court found the proposed plan, including significant surety pledges and electronic monitoring, sufficient to address secondary ground concerns.

The applicant was released on strict conditions.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and mischief arising from an alleged assault by an intimate partner.

The case turned primarily on the complainant's credibility and on the admissibility of post-incident text messages sent by the complainant to the accused.

After a mid-trial voir dire, the court held the texts did not contain personal information attracting a reasonable expectation of privacy and were therefore not 'records' under s. 278.1 requiring a s. 278.93 application.

Although the court found the complainant's account plausible and likely true, her unexplained lack of forthrightness about those communications raised a reasonable doubt that was not cured by the remaining evidence.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, brought an application to adduce evidence of a third-party suspect.

The defence sought to call witnesses and introduce video surveillance to establish that another resident of the victim's building had animus, motive, and opportunity to commit the murder.

The court applied the McMillan test and found that the proposed evidence established a sufficient connection between the third party and the crime.

The application was granted, as the probative value of the evidence outweighed its slight prejudicial effect.

The Crown sought to admit utterances made by the accused, Najib Amin, during an undercover police operation in his first-degree murder trial.

The defence opposed admission, citing principles from R. v. Hart.

The court, applying the Hart factors as a framework, found the utterances admissible, concluding that their probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and that police conduct did not constitute an abuse of process.

The ruling specifically addressed four categories of utterances, finding them all admissible with one requiring a specific instruction to mitigate prejudice.

The applicant sought certiorari to quash his committal to stand trial for first degree murder following a preliminary inquiry.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on motive, opportunity, and after-the-fact conduct.

The reviewing court applied the test for committal, assessing whether there was any evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.

The court found that the combined evidence of the accused's motive, presence in the building, and attempts to conceal his identity was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of guilt.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

The accused, Daniel Stojanovski and Darko Stojanovski, were found guilty by a jury of attempted murder and discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life.

The charges stemmed from a cold-blooded shooting in a residential neighbourhood that left the victim, Nassundu Williams, an incomplete quadriplegic.

The Crown sought a life sentence, while the defence proposed 12 to 15 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of loaded handguns in a populated area and the catastrophic harm to the victim, and mitigating factors such as Darko Stojanovski being a first offender and both accused having family support and taking rehabilitative steps during pre-sentence detention.

Enhanced credit for pre-sentence detention, including additional credit for harsh lockdown conditions, was granted.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives.

The applicant, a municipal councillor charged with assaulting the deputy mayor, sought to vary his bail conditions to permit him to attend town council meetings.

His original bail conditions included a no-contact order with the victim and witnesses, and prohibited him from attending the town hall.

The applicant argued that his inability to attend meetings for three successive months would result in the loss of his council seat under the Municipal Act.

The court found that his unrestricted attendance posed an unacceptable risk to the victim and witnesses.

However, to prevent the automatic loss of his seat, the court granted a limited variation allowing him to attend one specific meeting for the sole purpose of registering his attendance, provided he is accompanied by a police officer at his own expense.

The accused was charged with 28 counts relating to the robbery of an unmarked police vehicle, including theft of firearms, ammunition, and police equipment.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on a handprint on a package of paper and the accused's subsequent arrest in a stolen vehicle containing some of the stolen items.

The court found the forensic evidence unreliable and concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the stolen items or committed the robbery.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

During a criminal trial for firearms-related offences, the accused challenged the admissibility of a videotaped police statement on the basis that it was involuntary.

The voir dire focused on whether police made threats or inducements suggesting that other detainees would be released if the accused accepted responsibility for a firearm.

The court applied the voluntariness test from R. v. Oickle and assessed conflicting testimony from the accused and a police officer regarding their interaction in the holding cells.

Due to minimal police notes, the absence of recordings of the critical interaction, and gaps in the evidentiary record, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary.

The statement was ruled inadmissible, effectively preventing the prosecution from continuing.

Sentencing following conviction for bank robbery committed by passing a note claiming the offender had a gun.

The court considered whether a conditional sentence was legally available and whether it should be imposed.

The judge held that where a robber merely passes a threatening note without possessing the means to carry out the threat, the offence does not constitute a “serious personal injury offence” under s. 752 of the Criminal Code, making a conditional sentence legally available.

However, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the seriousness and prevalence of bank robberies, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The offender received an 18‑month custodial sentence with credit for pre‑sentence custody and a subsequent probation order.

In a mid-trial voir dire in a robbery prosecution, the court determined whether an accused's statement to police was admissible.

Applying the voluntariness framework for statements to persons in authority, the court held there was credible evidence the impugned statement was made and that ultimate reliability disputes were for the trier of fact at trial.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the statement was voluntary, emphasizing the absence of threats, coercion, or promises and the proximity of a consultation with duty counsel.

The defence argument that non-recording rendered the statement inherently suspect was rejected on the facts and governing appellate authority.

The statement was admitted into evidence.