Sean F. Dunphy

The decision addresses a defence Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained during a search incident to arrest.

The court found that the arrest of Mr. Ibrahim under a valid and subsisting warrant was lawful, and the subsequent search of his person and satchel did not violate his rights under section 8 of the Charter.

While there was a brief breach of Mr. Ibrahim’s section 10(b) right to counsel, the court held that the breach was minor and did not warrant exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The application was dismissed.

The court considered whether the Receiver could disclaim an agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit, where the purchaser (Berry) claimed entitlement to specific performance and an equitable interest in the unit.

The Receiver, supported by the senior secured creditor, sought to maximize recovery for creditors.

The court found that Berry had not paid the full purchase price, that the supplementary and "as is, where is" agreements were not enforceable, and that the equities did not support a preference for Berry over other creditors.

The Receiver was authorized to disclaim the agreements.

The plaintiff, 9357-1578 Quebec Inc., brought a motion seeking the production of unredacted settlement agreements and related payment documents from a global settlement involving a transit construction project.

The plaintiff, as assignee of a subcontractor's delay claims, argued the redacted settlement amounts were relevant because the defendants had pleaded that any entitlement to delay costs was contingent on funds received from the project owner.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish on the evidentiary record that the redacted information was relevant to the issues in the actions.

Consequently, the motion was dismissed without prejudice to the plaintiff's right to renew the motion after examinations for discovery.

The court sentenced William Gallerno for aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code.

The unprovoked attack caused significant injuries to the victim, Ms. Assenza.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the severity and randomness of the assault and Gallerno’s criminal history, as well as mitigating factors including his Indigenous heritage, addiction, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of one year and six months, after credit for pre-sentence custody, and recommended placement in a treatment facility.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons ban, DNA order, and a non-contact order with the victim and her family.

This decision concerns two related shareholder applications under section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act involving SpassMed Inc. and its affiliates.

The court reviews the procedural history, including consolidation of the applications, amendments to the relief sought, and the appointment of an interim monitor.

Due to significant disputes of fact and credibility, the court orders that the consolidated application be converted to an action to allow for a full trial process.

This is an appeal by the Crown from a decision of the Ontario Court of Justice staying proceedings for breach of the respondent’s rights under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Superior Court finds that the delay was caused by an exceptional circumstance—an erroneous ruling by the initial trial judge on a third-party records application, which led to a successful certiorari application by the affected third party.

The Court holds that the Crown took all reasonable steps to avoid or mitigate the delay and that the lower court erred in attributing the delay to the Crown.

The appeal is granted, the stay is vacated, and the matter is remitted for trial.

The defendants sought to remove Stikeman Elliott LLP as counsel for the plaintiffs and to require destruction of documents containing their solicitor-client privileged information, alleging improper handling of privileged communications.

The court found that the privilege in the relevant emails was jointly held by both the sellers and the companies in the Ellis Group, and that the amalgamated company (Ellis Packaging Limited) continued to hold the privilege after the share purchase.

The motion was dismissed.

The court sentenced Jason Curnew for sexual assault against a contract employee, Ms. AS, whom he supervised.

The decision details the circumstances of the offence, the offender’s background, aggravating and mitigating factors, and the application of sentencing principles, including the totality principle.

The court imposed a five-year consecutive penitentiary sentence, with mandatory ancillary orders, after considering the impact on the victim, the abuse of authority, and the offender’s prior convictions.

The accused, William Gallerno, was tried for aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code.

The main issue was identification, as the victim, Ms. Assenza, could not identify her assailant.

The court considered the authenticity and chain of custody of a surveillance video showing the assault, as well as corroborating evidence from police, the victim’s husband, and subsequent police interactions with Mr. Gallerno.

Despite gaps in the chain of custody and the victim’s inability to identify the accused, the court found the video authentic and the identification evidence overwhelming, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Gallerno was the assailant.

A finding of guilt was entered.

Jermaine Watson was sentenced following his conviction by a jury for kidnapping.

The court detailed the circumstances of the sophisticated, meticulously planned offence, where Watson acted as a principal lieutenant in the abduction and prolonged, inhumane confinement of the victim for ransom.

The decision considered aggravating factors such as the home invasion, high degree of planning, Watson's central role and greed, and the use of restraints.

Mitigating factors were minimal, though Watson's severe and deteriorating health was considered as a collateral consequence impacting the harshness of incarceration.

The court applied sentencing principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality, and granted pre-sentence custody credit.

Watson was sentenced to 15 years, less 4 years and 46 days of pre-sentence credit.

Prajaphan Sivashothy was found guilty by a jury of possession for the purpose of trafficking 55.78 grams of fentanyl.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the deadly nature and quantity of fentanyl and the high moral culpability involved in trafficking such a substance.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of prior record, and positive rehabilitation prospects, tempered by a lack of insight into his actions.

The Crown sought a 6.5-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was inadequate given the gravity of the offence and the strong need for denunciation and deterrence, imposing a sentence of 5 years in prison, a mandatory DNA order, and a 10-year s. 109 prohibition.

The request to waive the victim surcharge was denied.

The applicant, Stephane Gagnon, brought two applications seeking a stay of proceedings: one alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to trial within a reasonable time, and another alleging abuse of process related to his return to Canada from Indonesia (argued as a "disguised extradition") and alleged misrepresentations at his bail hearing.

The court dismissed the s. 11(b) application, finding the delay was "Defence Delay" due to Gagnon being a fugitive.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process application, concluding there was no "disguised extradition" as Indonesia acted lawfully and Canada only provided logistical support, and that the Crown's statements at the bail hearing were not misleading.

The court found no breach of the applicant's s. 7 Charter rights and that a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The Crown brought an urgent application for certiorari and mandamus to quash a Justice of the Peace's decision to strike a bail hearing under s. 515(6) of the Criminal Code.

The Justice of the Peace struck the hearing after the proposed surety made a profane remark and then lied about it, deeming it unfair to the accused.

The Superior Court found that the Justice of the Peace lacked jurisdiction to strike the proceeding, as the witness's conduct, while unexpected, did not impair the accused's right to a fair hearing or engage principles of fundamental justice.

The court emphasized that a bail hearing is not subject to a "do-over" simply because a release plan falters.

The application was granted, quashing the decision and ordering the bail hearing to be completed.

The Crown brought an application to remove the defendant's counsel of record due to a conflict of interest.

The defendant and a co-accused were jointly charged with terrorism-related offences.

The counsel of record had previously represented or consulted with the co-accused, the defendant's family members, and potential witnesses in related matters.

The court found a realistic and significant risk of a future conflict of interest that could impair the counsel's duty of loyalty and effective assistance.

The application was granted, and the counsel was removed from the record.

The defendants were tried on charges including reckless discharge of a firearm, possession of restricted and prohibited firearms, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The charges arose from an incident where multiple shots were fired from a stolen white pick-up truck in a residential area.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants were occupants of the vehicle, acted in a joint enterprise, and intentionally discharged the firearms while reckless to the safety of others.

Both defendants were found guilty on all counts.

The defendants, Andre Pyne and Sadri Zorjani, brought applications under sections 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence, with Mr. Zorjani also seeking a stay of proceedings under section 24(1).

The court dismissed all applications, finding that police had reasonable grounds for arrest, there was no section 10(a) breach, and while a serious section 10(b) breach occurred due to delayed access to counsel, the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) as it was independently discovered and the breach was not deliberate or systemic.

The court also found that the high public interest in prosecuting gun crimes weighed against exclusion.

This decision concerns the dangerous offender sentencing of Mr. Francis, who was convicted of criminal harassment and breaches of probation and a Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO).

The court determined that an indeterminate sentence was necessary due to the offender's extensive history of violent and harassing behaviour, particularly against women, his consistent refusal to engage in treatment, and the high risk of recidivism.

The court found no reasonable expectation that a lesser sentence, even with a new LTSO, would adequately protect the public, especially given his immediate re-offending after a previous LTSO.

The judgment emphasizes the severe and life-altering psychological harm inflicted on victims and the offender's profound lack of insight or remorse.

The defendant brought a motion to adjourn a criminal trial to pursue a third-party records application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code, related to historical sexual assault allegations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defence had not provided sufficient case-specific evidence to establish the likely relevance of the records, beyond mere speculation, as required by s. 278.3(4).

The judge emphasized the high privacy expectations of complainants and the public interest in trial efficiency, balancing these against the accused's right to full answer and defence.

The offender was convicted by a jury of two counts of importing opium and one count of possession for the purpose of trafficking, involving 3.6 kilograms of opium.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought four years.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of the large quantity and the offender's role as a principal against mitigating factors including his lack of a prior criminal record and steady employment history.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The applicant, Terrell Als, sought a stay of charges under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay in bringing his case to trial.

The total time from arrest to the scheduled completion of trial was 1505 days, exceeding the 910-day presumptive ceiling established by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed the delay, attributing significant portions to defence delay (due to change of counsel and counsel's calendar unavailability) and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 court closures, Crown counsel's family emergency, and unforeseen judicial unavailability).

The court found that the Crown and court made reasonable efforts to mitigate delays.

Ultimately, the application was dismissed, as the net delay, after accounting for defence delay and exceptional circumstances, did not exceed the Jordan threshold.