Scott Buchanan

The accused was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault after attacking his stepfather with a machete while suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

The Ontario Review Board held an initial disposition hearing pursuant to s. 672.47(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Hospital recommended a detention order with privileges extending to community living within the catchment area, which was supported by the Crown and the accused's counsel.

The Board found the accused remained a significant threat to public safety due to ongoing paranoia, command hallucinations, and suicidal ideation.

The Board ordered a detention order with the terms and conditions recommended by the Hospital.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 after losing control of his vehicle and colliding with a parked truck.

The defendant brought Charter motions under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b), arguing his blood sample was unlawfully seized at the hospital while he was unconscious.

The court dismissed the Charter motions, finding the blood was drawn for routine medical care and lawfully seized pursuant to a warrant.

The court found the defendant guilty on all charges, relying on the presence of a rum bottle, an admission of alcohol consumption to paramedics, the collision itself, and toxicology results showing a blood alcohol level of 186.

The applicant was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000, and failing to comply with a release order on December 21, 2021.

The jury trial was scheduled to commence on February 23, 2026, more than 50 months after the charge.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application arguing that the delay violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under the Jordan framework.

The court found that after deducting defence delay and accounting for discrete events, the remaining delay of 34.14 months exceeded the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan.

The court concluded that the delay was not justified by case complexity and granted a stay of proceedings.

The Ontario Court of Justice delivered a sentencing decision for Christopher Judge, who was found guilty after trial of multiple offences including assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, dangerous operation of a conveyance, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident and while pursued by police.

The court rejected the defence's argument for a conditional stay based on the Kienapple rule, finding no legal nexus between the assault charges.

Considering the seriousness of the offences, the offender's high moral blameworthiness, and lack of remorse, the court determined that a conditional sentence would compromise community safety.

The defendant was sentenced to an effective six months in jail, followed by one year of probation with substance abuse counseling, a three-year driving prohibition, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The defendant, Christopher Judge, was charged with multiple Criminal Code offenses including assaulting a peace officer, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, failing to stop while pursued by police, and dangerous operation of a conveyance, following an incident involving a drug complaint, police chase, physical altercation, and vehicle collisions.

The defendant brought Charter motions alleging arbitrary detention (s. 9) and excessive force (s. 7).

The court dismissed the Charter motions, finding the investigative detention justified and the force used by the officer necessary given the defendant's resistance.

The court found the defendant guilty on all five remaining charges, rejecting his testimony as incredible and unreliable.

The defendant, Nathaniel Davis-Ball, was found guilty after trial of robbery, aggravated assault, and extortion.

The Crown sought a real jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court addressed the availability of a conditional sentence, particularly in light of R. v. Sharma and the principle of horizontal stare decisis as clarified in R. v. Sullivan.

Following the precedent set in R. v. Forrestall, the judge concluded that a conditional sentence was an available option.

Considering the seriousness of the offences, their impact on the victim, and the offender's background and moral responsibility, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, including electronic monitoring and community service.

The defendant, Lauren McDiarmid, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence obtained through multiple warrantless police entries into her apartment, arguing violations of her s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that three warrantless entries by police officers were unreasonable, as the Crown failed to justify them under common law duties or statutory provisions.

Consequently, the information obtained from these unlawful entries was excised from the search warrant application, rendering the warrant invalid.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the cumulative seriousness of the violations and their impact on the defendant's privacy rights.

The evidence was therefore excluded from trial.

During a criminal trial involving multiple accused, the Crown brought a Khelawon application to admit the out-of-court statements of two deceased witnesses for the truth of their contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that the unsworn, audio-recorded telephone statement of a former neighbour lacked both procedural and substantive reliability and was inadmissible.

However, the court admitted the video-recorded statement of a deceased complainant, finding sufficient procedural safeguards and substantive reliability corroborated by other witnesses to overcome hearsay dangers.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking and subjected to a strip search, which yielded no drugs.

Drugs were later found hidden in his vehicle.

The accused brought Charter applications under s. 8 and s. 10(b).

The court found the strip search was lawful and did not violate s. 8.

However, the court found multiple serious breaches of the accused's s. 10(b) rights, including the police refusing to allow him to contact his mother to obtain the name of his counsel of choice, delaying his access to counsel, questioning him before his rights were implemented, and failing to keep him informed of efforts to contact counsel.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the drugs would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to the serious and cavalier nature of the police misconduct.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The defendant, Nathaniel Davis-Ball, was charged with aggravated assault, extortion, and robbery stemming from a violent incident with the victim, Brian Upham, over a debt.

The trial addressed issues of witness identification, the elements of the offences, and a defence application for a stay of proceedings due to alleged lost evidence (CCTV footage and an uninvestigated object).

The court found the victim's identification reliable, the elements of all charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and dismissed the stay application, concluding that the lost evidence was either irrelevant or not lost due to unacceptable negligence causing irremediable prejudice.

During a trial for sexual offences, the defence sought to cross-examine a complainant on alleged prior inconsistent statements recorded in notes made by Family and Children's Services workers, pursuant to s. 11 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The Crown objected, arguing the notes were not verbatim statements.

The court ruled that the notes, being summaries written in the third person and not verified by the complainant, lacked the necessary reliability to be characterized as prior inconsistent statements under the Act.

The defence was permitted to cross-examine on the content of the interviews but could not use the notes as formal prior statements.

The defendant, C.S., brought a motion for leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of an Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant.

The defence alleged that the ITO contained misleading information and material omissions, arguing that cross-examination was necessary to challenge the reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant and to explore whether the warrant was obtained by deception.

The court reviewed the legal principles governing Garofoli motions and the duty of full and frank disclosure.

The motion was dismissed, as the court found the defence had not laid the necessary foundation to justify cross-examination, concluding that the alleged omissions and inaccuracies were either irrelevant or insufficient to establish a reasonable basis for a claim of abuse of process.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of lay opinion evidence from a registered nurse and capacity assessor regarding the complainant's capacity to manage her personal care.

The accused opposed the admission, arguing it was irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.

The court applied the principles from Graat and ruled the evidence admissible, finding it relevant to the complainant's condition and helpful to the jury, subject to appropriate limiting instructions.

The Crown sought a ruling on the admissibility of proposed demonstrative aids, specifically aerial maps of Port Colborne with embedded photographs and property descriptors, for a lengthy trial involving multiple accused and sexual offences.

The accused objected to the necessity of the maps, the accuracy of Google Street View photos, and the prejudicial nature of certain descriptors.

The court allowed the use of the aerial maps with municipal addresses and commercial names, but excluded the embedded photographs and non-neutral descriptors to avoid clutter and potential prejudice.

The applicant sought to delay setting trial dates scheduled for December 2020 to allow time to prepare a motion to stay proceedings based on unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant had only recently obtained Legal Aid approval for the motion.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant had failed to act diligently in bringing the motion earlier despite the judge raising the issue of delay on multiple occasions throughout the proceedings.

The court emphasized that all participants in the justice system must strive to prevent delay rather than react to it, as directed by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Jordan and R. v. Cody.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl into a correctional facility and assaulting a correctional officer.

The defendant, a young offender with a difficult childhood marked by family dysfunction, mental health challenges, and educational failures, smuggled 8.5 grams of fentanyl into the Niagara Detention Centre and subsequently assaulted a guard without provocation.

The court imposed sentences of two years for trafficking and three months consecutive for assault, to run concurrently with an existing four-year sentence.

The court rejected arguments based on systemic anti-Black racism as a basis for reducing sentences, holding that personal circumstances rather than their causes are relevant to proportionality in sentencing.

The defendant pleaded guilty to sexual interference against a nine-year-old girl.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of six to nine months, while the defence sought a 12-month conditional sentence order.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with electronic supervision, followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing was guided by R. v. Friesen and the principle that sexual offences against children warrant denunciation and deterrence, but exceptional circumstances—including the defendant's unresolved mental health issues—justified a non-custodial sentence.

The defendant was also subject to ancillary orders including sex offender registry, DNA collection, weapons prohibition, and a 10-year section 161 order restricting contact with minors.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault of a police officer, breach of recognizance, resisting arrest, robbery, mischief, and failure to comply with a recognizance.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter s. 11(b) application for delay, finding that the defence failed to provide complete transcripts, that the officer's illness constituted a discrete event, and that an inflated trial time estimate contributed to delay.

The accused was found guilty of aggravated assault after a trial on the merits.

The court imposed a sentence emphasizing rehabilitation over incarceration, given the accused's youth, first-offender status, genuine remorse, and demonstrated progress toward rehabilitation, while maintaining denunciation and general deterrence through probation conditions and community service.

The accused brought pre-trial motions to exclude evidence in a drug trafficking prosecution involving heroin, fentanyl, cocaine, and psilocybin.

The accused challenged the sufficiency of the search warrants for two motel rooms, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant, and alleged Charter breaches regarding unlawful detention, strip searches, and delayed implementation of the right to counsel.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the warrants sufficient, the detention and strip searches justified, and that while the right to counsel was breached by delay, no evidence was obtained as a result of that breach.

The applicant brought a motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation regarding a rural property formerly owned by his parents.

The applicant alleged that the property was transferred to the respondent's corporation to be held in trust for the applicant, who purchased it at half its market value from his parents but could not obtain financing.

The respondent claimed the property was purchased outright with an expectation the applicant would buy it back later.

The court found a triable issue regarding the applicant's beneficial interest and held that damages would be inadequate given the property's long history in the applicant's family.

The motion for a Certificate of Pending Litigation was granted on terms.