Shane Martinez

The appellants laid a private Information against an organization for allegedly recruiting volunteers for a foreign armed force.

The Crown intervened and withdrew the charge, citing no reasonable prospect of conviction.

The appellants applied for certiorari, alleging abuse of process.

The application judge dismissed the application, finding a lack of standing and jurisdiction, and alternatively, that the appellants failed to meet the evidentiary threshold for abuse of process.

The Court of Appeal held that while the Superior Court does have jurisdiction and private informants do have standing to seek certiorari in these circumstances, the application judge correctly concluded that the appellants failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to show abuse of process.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a young child.

The police videotaped the initial interviews with the child complainants but negligently failed to record the audio.

The defence brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, arguing the lost evidence impaired the accused's right to make full answer and defence under s. 7.

The court found unacceptable negligence by the police resulting in a s. 7 breach, but denied the stay as the defence failed to show irreparable prejudice.

At trial, the court found significant inconsistencies and credibility issues in the children's evidence, raising a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

Following a judge‑alone trial, the accused was convicted of robbery and wearing a disguise with intent arising from a planned robbery of a retail telecommunications store in Toronto.

The offenders stole more than 100 cellular phones valued at approximately $50,000 and fled in a rented getaway vehicle before being arrested shortly thereafter.

The court considered the accused’s extensive criminal record, limited employment history, and poor prospects for rehabilitation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing objectives.

The court also addressed the parity principle in relation to co‑accused who had pleaded guilty and received lesser sentences.

A global custodial sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment was imposed after credit for pre‑trial custody, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

The accused was tried for robbery, wearing a disguise with intent, and possession of property obtained by crime following the robbery of a Bell store by two masked men.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including surveillance video, clothing comparisons, footprint impressions, and the accused's flight from police.

During the trial, the court permitted the Crown to reopen its case to admit clothing exhibits due to an oversight.

The court found that the cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence, including the accused's presence with the other perpetrators before and after the robbery, the purchase of the bag used in the robbery, and his flight from police, established his identity as one of the robbers beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

During a jury trial for importing cocaine, the Crown sought to admit opinion evidence from a police officer regarding the pricing and value of cocaine imported through Pearson Airport.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the proposed expert evidence, arguing the witness lacked proper qualifications and that the evidence could improperly influence the jury.

Applying the criteria for expert evidence from R. v. Mohan and the Supreme Court’s guidance in R. v. Sekhon, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification.

The court found that the evidence was relevant to the issue of the accused’s knowledge and that the jury would not otherwise understand the value of the quantity of cocaine involved.

Based on the officer’s extensive investigative experience and exposure to pricing information through investigations and intelligence sources, the court concluded he possessed the requisite specialized knowledge and permitted the opinion evidence.

Following the court’s earlier decision declining to certify a proposed class proceeding, the parties addressed the issue of costs for the certification motion.

The plaintiffs had received funding from the Law Foundation of Ontario, which indemnified them against adverse cost awards.

The parties and the Law Foundation agreed that the costs of the certification motion would be payable to the defendant.

The court issued an endorsement reflecting the parties’ consent that costs be paid to the defendant in the amount of $50,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

The applicant, a federal inmate serving a life sentence for first degree murder, sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid challenging a prison decision increasing his security classification and transferring him from a medium to a maximum security institution.

He argued the decision was unlawful because the Correctional Service of Canada failed to disclose sufficient information to permit him to respond to allegations linking him to an inmate assault, contrary to s. 27 of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court held that inmates are not entitled to full Stinchcombe‑level disclosure in institutional administrative decisions and that only sufficient disclosure to understand the case to meet is required.

The court found that the applicant received the gist of the allegations and that additional information could properly be withheld to protect confidential informants and institutional security.

The warden’s decision was supported by a reasonable belief that the transfer was necessary for the orderly administration of the institution.