S. Foda

The applicant, facing charges of fraud over $5000 for allegedly defrauding victims of $20 million, sought a bail review after being detained on primary and tertiary grounds.

He argued the initial justice erred in relying on his unwillingness to surrender from Indonesia and that new Charter applications and an enhanced release plan constituted a material change in circumstances.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding no error in the initial decision and concluding that the new evidence and reshuffled sureties did not amount to a material change in circumstances.

The appellant appealed her convictions for assault, threatening, mischief, and forcible entry on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.

She alleged her trial lawyer was unprepared, failed to provide proper advice, brought a meritless stay application, and sexually harassed her.

The Superior Court of Justice found that while the appellant did not demonstrate the verdict would have been different, trial counsel's pervasive incompetence and sexual harassment of the appellant compromised the fairness of the trial, amounting to a constructive denial of the assistance of counsel.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicant, currently on trial for sexual assault in the Ontario Court of Justice, sought an order of certiorari to quash the trial judge's dismissal of his mistrial application and an order of mandamus to permit him to re-elect a jury trial.

The mistrial application was based on the late disclosure of a police occurrence report.

The Crown moved to summarily dismiss the application, arguing it constituted an impermissible interlocutory appeal.

The Superior Court agreed with the Crown, finding that the trial judge's decision regarding the disclosure regime and the mistrial was within her jurisdiction, and therefore certiorari was unavailable.

The application was summarily dismissed.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The Crown obtained an ex parte transmission data recorder warrant and an assistance order compelling a telecommunications company to provide subscriber information for unknown phone numbers communicating with a target.

The company sought a review of the assistance order, arguing that a general warrant was required to obtain subscriber information due to privacy interests recognized in R. v. Spencer.

The Superior Court of Justice held that it had jurisdiction to review the order and concluded that an assistance order under s. 487.02 of the Criminal Code is sufficient to compel the production of subscriber information to give effect to a transmission data recorder warrant.