Scott Patterson

The offenders were found guilty of fraud over $5,000 relating to syndicated mortgage loans for two construction projects, resulting in a loss of over $24.4 million to nearly 800 investors.

The court found the magnitude, complexity, and duration of the fraud to be significant aggravating factors, while the offenders' lack of prior records and community support were mitigating.

Emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale commercial fraud, the court sentenced each offender to 5 years in penitentiary, a $12.2 million fine in lieu of forfeiture, and a 10-year prohibition order.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit out-of-court text and Snapchat communications between alleged co-conspirators against the respondent, who is charged with first-degree murder.

The respondent argued the statements did not meet the necessity requirement because the declarants were available to testify.

The court granted the application, finding that the contemporaneous written communications were the best evidence available, the declarants were unlikely to be cooperative witnesses, and the statements met the threshold reliability and necessity requirements under the Carter test and the principled approach to hearsay.

The respondent is charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder.

The Crown brought an application to admit discreditable conduct evidence, specifically photographs and videos of the respondent with firearms, as well as firearms and ammunition seized from two residences.

The court applied the Handy framework, balancing the probative value of the evidence regarding means, opportunity, and identity against its prejudicial effect.

The court admitted several photos and videos connecting the respondent to 9mm ammunition and handguns similar to the unrecovered murder weapon, but excluded highly prejudicial images, including those depicting an Uzi and apparent drugs.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder and attempted murder, brought a facial challenge to the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant for his residence, alleging a breach of his s. 8 Charter rights.

He argued the ITO lacked reasonable grounds to implicate him or to believe evidence would be found at his home.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the ITO, viewed holistically, contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence—including witness descriptions matching the applicant, his association with co-conspirators, and evidence of prior conflict with the victim—upon which the authorizing justice could have reasonably issued the warrant.

This decision concerns the conviction of Jawad Rathore and Vince Petrozza for Fraud Over $5,000 under section 380 of the Criminal Code related to syndicated mortgage loans raised through their organization, Fortress.

The Court found that Rathore and Petrozza intentionally misled investors by misrepresenting the value of the security backing the loans, using inflated and misleading appraisals to calculate loan-to-value ratios, thereby deceiving investors about the actual security of their investments.

The Crown's theory of non-disclosure of upfront fees was rejected, as fees were paid by the borrower and not the lenders, and no obligation to disclose them to investors was found.

The Court emphasized the high standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and relied on documentary evidence to assess credibility and reliability.

The accused were found guilty based on the misrepresentations of value that created a risk of deprivation to investors.

The applicant, charged with murder, brought an application for disclosure of cell phone records from a separate homicide investigation, arguing they were relevant to a third party suspect defence.

The Crown argued the records were third party records subject to the O'Connor regime.

The court found that the police believed there was a connection between the two murders and that there was an air of reality to the third party suspect defence.

Consequently, the requested records were 'obviously relevant' and subject to the Crown's first party disclosure obligations under Stinchcombe.

However, the court found the applicant's request for the entirety of the cell phones' content was overly broad and ordered the Crown to provide a list of the types of information available so the applicant could make a tailored request.

The court sentenced Lance Burkhard for second-degree murder following a guilty plea after a successful appeal of his first-degree murder conviction.

The decision details the facts of the offence, the aggravating and mitigating factors, the character and rehabilitation of the offender, and the impact on the victim’s family.

The court imposed a life sentence with 12 years of parole ineligibility, considering the seriousness of the offence, Burkhard’s criminal record, his rehabilitation efforts, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, including during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The appellant, Marc Owusu-Boamah, appealed his conviction for administering a noxious substance and his global ten-year sentence following a kidnapping and extortion.

The trial judge found the appellant was a central player in a coordinated criminal scheme.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusion that the drugging was part of the coordinated plan, making the appellant culpable under s. 21(1) or s. 21(2) of the Criminal Code.

However, the Court granted leave to appeal sentence and reduced the concurrent sentence for administering a noxious substance from six years to one year, as the original sentence exceeded the statutory maximum.

The global sentence remained unaffected.

The applicant sought release pending his appeal of convictions and a 36-month sentence for weapons offences.

The Crown opposed bail on the public interest criterion, citing the applicant's history of weapons offences and breaches of release terms.

The motion judge found that the proposed release plan, which relied on the applicant's mother as a surety, was inadequate given her past inability to supervise him and prevent violations.

Concluding there was a strong likelihood of breach and a real risk to public safety, the court dismissed the application for release pending appeal.

The Crown applied for an order permitting six witnesses to testify by videoconference at the accused's fraud trial.

Three witnesses resided in the United States and three resided in Canada outside Ontario.

The accused opposed the application for one US witness on the basis of solicitor-client privilege, and opposed the Canadian witnesses on the basis of credibility and memory issues.

The court granted the application, finding that privilege issues should be dealt with separately and that credibility issues could be assessed equally well over video.

The court concluded the statutory tests under ss. 714.1 and 714.2 of the Criminal Code were met.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, applied for a stay of proceedings or an increase in juror remuneration, arguing that the current payment framework under the Administration of Justice Act breaches his ss. 11(d) and 11(f) Charter rights by excluding lower-income individuals and creating an unrepresentative jury.

The court dismissed the application, finding that jury representativeness depends on the random selection of the jury roll, not diversity, and that the applicant failed to provide evidence that financial hardship disproportionately affects lower-paid workers or that increased remuneration would resolve the issue.

Two paramedics were convicted of failing to provide the necessaries of life after misdiagnosing a fatal gunshot wound as a superficial BB gun injury and failing to transport the victim to a trauma hospital immediately.

The Crown sought a 2.5-year penitentiary sentence, arguing that uncharged offences like manslaughter should be considered aggravating factors.

The court rejected this argument, finding it fundamentally unfair since the Crown chose the specific charge.

Balancing the offenders' high moral blameworthiness for failing to follow their training against their lack of criminal records, positive community support, and the collateral consequences of their convictions, the court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence for each offender.

The accused was charged with willfully promoting hatred against gay men under s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code after distributing anti-gay flyers at the 2016 Toronto Pride Parade.

The flyers contained graphic images and medical claims about the dangers of the 'homosexual lifestyle', alongside religious messaging.

The court found that while the flyers were offensive and contained exaggerations, they fell into the 'grey zone' between legitimate expression and hate speech, lacking the hallmarks of extreme vilification.

The court also found a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's specific intent to promote hatred, resulting in an acquittal.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent for second-degree murder, arguing the trial judge made errors of law in evaluating evidence, specifically regarding witness testimony, a formal admission about a substance trail, and speculation about blood evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no legal errors in the trial judge's analysis and reiterating that appellate review on a Crown appeal is limited to questions of law, not the reasonableness of an acquittal or reweighing of evidence.

The Crown applied to qualify an expert witness to testify on the history and tropes of anti-gay discrimination in the trial of the accused for willful promotion of hatred.

The accused had distributed flyers at the Toronto Pride Parade.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and found that while the expert was qualified and capable of giving unbiased evidence despite his advocacy background, the evidence was not necessary.

The court held that a properly instructed jury could determine whether the flyer constituted hate speech without expert assistance.

Furthermore, the court found that the cost-benefit analysis favoured exclusion due to the high risk of distracting the jury with debates over religious beliefs and political values.

The application was dismissed.

The accused paramedics were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to a 19-year-old gunshot victim.

Upon arriving at the scene, the accused failed to recognize the victim had suffered a penetrating wound to the abdomen, instead concluding he was experiencing a psychiatric issue and had been shot by a BB gun.

They delayed transport, performed inappropriate lifts, and failed to take the victim to a lead trauma hospital.

The court found their actions constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of reasonably trained paramedics, endangering the victim's life.

Both accused were found guilty.

The applicant, charged with sexual offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing that the 40-month and 19-day delay in bringing him to trial was unreasonable.

The Crown argued that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 global pandemic and the time it took the applicant to secure funding for counsel.

The court agreed, deducting 10 months and 12 days for the pandemic and 3 months for the funding delay, bringing the net delay to 28 months and 8 days, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to introduce flyers distributed by the accused in Saskatchewan in 2000 and 2001 as evidence of motive in a hate speech trial.

In an addendum to previous reasons, the court held that while two of the flyers were capable of showing animus towards gay people, their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

The Crown's application to introduce the Saskatchewan flyers was dismissed.

The appellant appealed convictions for possession and accessing child pornography, and a 10-year prohibition order, arguing errors in the trial judge's s. 24(2) Charter analysis regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained from an invalid search warrant.

The Crown conceded the s. 8 Charter breach.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence, finding no reviewable error in the assessment of the seriousness of the state conduct (negligent drafting of the information to obtain, not bad faith), the significant impact on Charter rights, and the strong public interest in adjudication on the merits.

The court also dismissed the appeal against the 10-year prohibition order, finding no error in principle or unreasonableness.

In a criminal trial for wilfully promoting hatred, the Crown sought to introduce various blog posts and internet articles as "proposed motive evidence" to demonstrate the accused's animus towards gay people.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that the proposed evidence was not capable of demonstrating the intense and extreme hatred required for motive.

The court ruled that the prejudicial effect of admitting such evidence, which risked distracting the jury with debates over the accused's political and religious views rather than the elements of the offence, significantly outweighed its limited probative value.