Scott Patterson

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 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.

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.

The accused, D.B., was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, robbery, and other offenses involving two complainants, L.G. and E.H., on a single indictment.

D.B. applied to sever the charges relating to L.G. from those relating to E.H. and also sought to admit evidence under s. 276 of the Criminal Code regarding L.G.'s past willing sexual services for drug debts.

The court granted the severance application, finding insufficient factual nexus between the incidents and a significant risk of propensity reasoning by the jury.

It also determined that the Crown's similar fact evidence application was unlikely to succeed.

The s. 276 application was dismissed, as the proposed evidence was deemed inadmissible under s. 276(1) and (2) of the Criminal Code, serving no purpose other than to support an inference of past consent, which is prohibited.

The appellant appealed the sentence imposed by the Ontario Court of Justice.

The parties agreed that the appeal should be allowed to correct the credit given for pre-trial custody.

The appellant had served eight months pre-trial, and the parties agreed the credit should have been 12 months at a 1:5.1 ratio.

With the correct allocation for pre-trial custody, the sentence imposed (suspended sentence with 12 months probation) remained unchanged, as did the other ancillary orders.

The appeal was allowed to reflect the proper credit for time served.

During a trial for first-degree murder arising from a home invasion and robbery, the Crown brought a KGB application to admit the prior inconsistent statement of a co-perpetrator for the truth of its contents.

The co-perpetrator had confessed to undercover police officers during a 'Mr. Big' operation but recanted parts of his confession at trial.

The court found that while the statement lacked substantive reliability, it met the test for threshold reliability based on procedural reliability, as there were adequate substitutes for testing truth and accuracy, including cross-examination and the use of a truth verification strategy by the undercover officers.

The application was granted and the statement was admitted.

The offenders were convicted of fraud over $5,000 in relation to a large-scale mortgage fraud scheme involving properties owned by the elderly father of one of the offenders.

The total loss to the title insurer was over $3.3 million.

The Crown sought three-year prison sentences and a restitution order against the son.

The court found that both offenders were suitable candidates for conditional sentences, imposing terms of two years less a day with house arrest and curfew conditions.

The court declined to order restitution against the son due to his destitution and subservient role, but imposed fines in lieu of forfeiture against both offenders based on the specific fraudulent funds they had possessed or controlled, giving them 20 years to pay.

The accused was charged with three counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of possession of property obtained by fraud.

The Crown alleged that between January 2012 and September 2013, the accused orchestrated a sophisticated fraud scheme involving the deposit of worthless cheques into credit card accounts to artificially inflate credit limits, followed by coordinated purchases of high-end merchandise from Home Depot stores across the Greater Toronto Area.

The accused, self-represented with assistance of amicus curiae, claimed he had permission from cardholders to use their cards and that he was merely a middleman facilitating transactions for gamblers and others who needed quick cash.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven all essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected the accused's explanations as inherently unconvincing and lacking logic.

The court also dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application regarding delay in trial, finding exceptional circumstances justified the time taken.

The accused, Fred Curreri and Linda Lawlor, were charged with fraud over $5,000 against the elder Fred Curreri, Fred Curreri's father.

The fraud involved the fraudulent transfer and mortgaging of eight properties owned by the elder Fred Curreri.

The court found Fred Curreri guilty of fraud over $5,000 for his direct involvement in the fraudulent schemes, including transferring and mortgaging his father's properties and dispersing mortgage funds without consent, and alternatively, found him wilfully blind.

Linda Lawlor was found guilty of fraud over $5,000 for fraudulently transferring one specific property (1246 St. Clair) without authorization, but not for another property (28 Ruden) due to insufficient proof of her direct involvement in the transfer or subjective appreciation of its wrongfulness.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident where police discovered him engaged in sexual activity with an extremely intoxicated complainant in a grassy area outside an apartment building.

The Crown alleged the complainant was incapable of consenting due to her extreme intoxication.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent.

Despite evidence of the complainant's severe intoxication, independent witness testimony and the accused's evidence suggested the complainant had consented to the sexual activity.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on grounds of unreasonable trial delay.

The defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit fraud over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and obstructing a peace officer in connection with an alleged staged motor vehicle accident and fraudulent insurance claim.

The charges arose from Project Whiplash, a large-scale investigation involving 38 separately charged individuals.

The court conducted an attribution analysis of the delay periods and found that approximately 8 months of the 16-month total delay constituted neutral intake procedures inherent to the case, while 7 months represented systemic institutional delay.

The court determined that the defendant suffered only modest actual and inferred prejudice and that society's interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the defendant's interest in prompt adjudication.

The application was dismissed.