Sean Christopher Doyle

The accused was charged with firearms and drug trafficking offences following a search of his apartment.

The trial proceeded as a Charter application to exclude evidence under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Three primary issues were raised: (1) whether the search warrant was validly issued based on confidential informant information; (2) whether covert pre-warrant entries into the apartment building constituted unlawful trespasses and section 8 violations; and (3) whether the accused's section 10(b) rights to counsel were violated when police failed to facilitate access to counsel following arrest.

The court found that while the warrant was validly issued and the pre-warrant entries constituted only minor section 8 breaches, the failure to facilitate access to counsel was a serious and gross violation of the accused's Charter rights.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused, a 23-year-old first offender, was convicted by a jury of criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm after a high-speed motor vehicle collision that killed his best friend and injured another passenger.

The court balanced the principles of general deterrence and denunciation with the accused's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day in custody, followed by three years of probation and 240 hours of community service.

The court also imposed a 10-year driving prohibition, finding that the recent Criminal Code amendments did not remove the power to impose such a ban for criminal negligence causing death, as dangerous driving is an included offence.

The applicant applied to have his 2018 property taxes cancelled, reduced, or refunded under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty.

The City of Mississauga delegated the determination to the Assessment Review Board.

The Board reviewed the applicant's financial evidence, which showed a monthly income exceeding documented expenses and access to funds through a reverse mortgage.

The Board found that the applicant failed to demonstrate an inability to pay the property taxes and dismissed the application.

The applicants applied for a reduction, cancellation, or refund of their 2018 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness or extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicants had a monthly income exceeding their expenses and possessed significant cash assets and savings.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the applicants failed to demonstrate an inability to pay their property taxes and dismissed the application.

The 99-year-old applicant applied for a refund of her 2018 property taxes under section 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness or extreme poverty.

The Assessment Review Board found that the applicant had already paid the taxes in full and still retained a monthly surplus, significant equity in her home, and available funds through a reverse mortgage.

The Board concluded the applicant was not unable to pay her taxes and dismissed the application.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving causing death after making an illegal U-turn that resulted in a fatal collision with a motorcycle.

The court found that the defendant's driving was objectively dangerous, thus establishing the actus reus of the offence.

However, the court acquitted the defendant, concluding that while the driving constituted a departure from the standard of care, it did not amount to a "marked departure" required for criminal fault, but rather a single, momentary error in judgment.

The decision emphasized the distinction between civil negligence and criminal conduct, relying on Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence.

The defendant applied for $5,000 in costs against the Crown under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of his s. 7 rights due to the late disclosure of a witness statement which caused a trial adjournment.

The court found that the late disclosure was the result of an inadvertent administrative error by Crown staff, not a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The court dismissed the application, holding that no s. 7 breach occurred and that costs are not an appropriate remedy for inadvertent disclosure errors or trial adjournments.

The accused, charged with fraud and theft relating to real estate investments, brought an application to stay the proceedings as an abuse of process and subpoenaed Crown counsel and civil litigators.

The Crown brought a motion to summarily dismiss the abuse of process application on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success, and applications were brought to quash the subpoenas.

The court analyzed the six grounds of alleged abuse of process, including claims of compelled self-incrimination, improper coordination between civil and criminal proceedings, and lack of independent police investigation.

The court found all grounds to be speculative, factually misconceived, or legally unfounded.

Applying the Cody and Babos tests, the court summarily dismissed the abuse of process application and quashed the subpoenas.

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge granted to the respondent following a conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The respondent had repeatedly punched the complainant in the face outside a bar, causing severe injuries including broken orbital bones and a broken nose.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge erred by minimizing the long-lasting effects of the injuries and placing insufficient weight on denunciation and general deterrence.

The court held that a conditional discharge was contrary to the public interest given the brutality of the assault.

The conditional discharge was set aside and a three-month conditional sentence was imposed.

The applicants applied for a refund of their 2016 property taxes under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001, citing sickness and extreme poverty.

While the Board accepted that one applicant suffered from sickness, it found that the applicants had sufficient financial resources, including significant assets outside of Canada, to pay their property taxes.

The application was dismissed.

Following a jury trial where the accused was found guilty of robbery and related offences, defence counsel received anonymous letters purportedly from a juror raising concerns about the deliberation process and alleged bias.

The accused applied for an inquiry into the jury or a mistrial.

The court dismissed the application, applying the common law rule of jury secrecy and finding that the delay and anonymous nature of the letters made them too unreliable to warrant an inquiry or mistrial.

The moving party brought a motion for the production of confidential information held by the respondent regarding 24 pharmaceutical companies and five non-pharmaceutical companies, to assist in valuing its purpose-built pharmaceutical manufacturing facility.

The respondent and third-party property owners consented to the release of information for the pharmaceutical properties but objected to the non-pharmaceutical properties.

The Assessment Review Board found that the non-pharmaceutical properties lacked sufficient similarity to the subject property and denied disclosure for those five properties.

The Board ordered the disclosure of information for the 24 pharmaceutical properties, subject to strict confidentiality undertakings.

The offender, a habitual criminal with 62 prior convictions, drove a stolen truck through a red light while evading police, striking and killing another driver before fleeing the scene.

He was convicted of criminal negligence causing death, failing to remain, possession of stolen property, and driving while disqualified.

The court considered his Aboriginal heritage as a mitigating factor under the Gladue framework but emphasized the paramount need for denunciation and protection of the public.

A global sentence of 15 years' incarceration was imposed, along with a lifetime driving prohibition and delayed parole eligibility.

The appellant, Brian Dixon, appealed his convictions for multiple charges including criminal harassment, uttering death threats, assault with a weapon, mischief, and breach of recognizance, as well as his sentence.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no misapprehension of evidence, reasonable fear by complainants, no Kienapple principle violation, and proper credibility assessment.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed due to an error in the original sentence and the introduction of a Gladue report.

The court re-sentenced the appellant, imposing a varied term of imprisonment and probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while considering Gladue principles and mitigating factors.

The applicants appealed to the Assessment Review Board seeking a cancellation, reduction, or refund of their 2014 property taxes, citing an inability to pay due to sickness and extreme poverty under s. 357(1)(d.1) of the Municipal Act, 2001.

While the Board accepted that one applicant suffered from sickness due to cancer treatment, it found that the applicants did not meet the test for extreme poverty.

The Board noted the applicants' household income, discretionary expenses, and substantial equity in their home, concluding they had sufficient resources to pay their property taxes.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed Kelly's acquittal for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams, which resulted from the exclusion of breath test results due to a s. 8 Charter violation.

The trial judge found that the police officer administered an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test despite knowing the respondent had a lozenge in his mouth, a circumstance the officer himself stated would invalidate the test.

This rendered the subsequent Intoxilyzer demand unlawful.

The appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings regarding the officer's credibility, the s. 8 Charter violation, and the s. 24(2) Charter analysis for excluding the evidence, emphasizing the officer's misleading testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death, failing to remain at the scene, possession of stolen property, and driving while disqualified, following a fatal collision.

The accused, driving a stolen truck, fled from police at high speeds, ran a red light, and struck another vehicle, killing its driver.

The accused then fled on foot but was apprehended shortly after.

The primary issue at trial was identity.

The court accepted the police officer's eyewitness testimony and the accused's post-offence conduct as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The appellant appealed his assault conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

At trial, a civilian witness testified to seeing the appellant assault the driver of a vehicle.

The appellant claimed he was the victim and that the driver's injuries, including blood, resulted from her breaking her fingernails while punching him.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence, erroneously finding that the police officer never mentioned broken nails, when the officer had actually testified to seeing cracked nails with blood under them.

The Superior Court of Justice held that this misapprehension of evidence played an essential role in the trial judge's reasoning process for rejecting the appellant's defence.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed convictions for two counts of assault arising from incidents involving his spouse.

He argued that the trial judge reversed the burden of proof and that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance.

The summary conviction appeal court held that the trial judge’s reasons, read contextually, correctly articulated and applied the burden of proof and properly applied the W.D. framework when assessing credibility.

The court further held that the appellant failed to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice resulting from alleged deficiencies in trial counsel’s preparation, cross-examination strategy, or courtroom performance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, challenging the dismissal of his s. 8 Charter application and arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to give adequate reasons.

The appeal focused on whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and make a breath demand under s. 254(3).

The court reviewed the trial record and applicable authorities regarding sufficiency of reasons and the standard of review for findings of fact and legal conclusions.

It held that the trial judge’s reasons were adequate and that the officer’s observations of driving behaviour, odour of alcohol, demeanour, and physical appearance supported both subjective and objective grounds for arrest.

The court found no error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of the law.