S. Kim

The accused was charged with murder and brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on late disclosure and abuse of process.

The Crown failed to disclose critical DNA evidence identifying the victim's brother's DNA on a mask recovered at the scene, which had been in police possession since January 7, 2025, but was not disclosed until September 9, 2025, on the eve of trial.

Additionally, the Crown failed to timely disclose cell tower evidence and corresponding witness statements necessary to establish the accused's identity as the suspect.

The court found serious violations of the accused's section 7 Charter rights and determined that the Crown's pattern of negligence, apathy, and late preparation constituted an abuse of process that undermined the integrity of the justice system.

A stay of proceedings was granted as the only appropriate remedy.

The accused, Alex Beseiso, applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court reviewed the timeline of the proceedings, including periods of delay and the reasons for them, and found that the majority of the delay was attributable to the defence, particularly due to the accused's absence from Canada and failure to attend his trial.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

Vera Kasotty pleaded guilty to Fraud Over $5000 and Arson, charges arising from an organized crime investigation into staged motor vehicle collisions for insurance fraud.

The Crown sought a jail term of two years less a day, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence of the same duration.

The court considered the principles of general deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.

Despite the seriousness of the offences and their connection to organized crime, the judge found that a conditional sentence could adequately reflect sentencing principles given Kasotty's relative role, remorse, restitution, and lack of prior criminal record.

The Crown applied to remove defence counsel for a young person charged with second degree murder, alleging a conflict of interest because counsel also represented a Crown witness on unrelated charges.

The witness had given a confusing police statement suggesting the accused might be involved, but later testified at the preliminary hearing that he had no direct communication with the accused.

Both the accused and the witness provided informed waivers consenting to the representation.

The court dismissed the application, finding no realistic risk of adversity in interest and noting that independent counsel could cross-examine the witness if necessary.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder after fatally stabbing an unarmed victim in the chest with a combat knife outside a nightclub.

The Crown sought 14 years of parole ineligibility, while amicus for the self-represented offender sought the minimum 10 years, which was also recommended by the majority of the jury.

The court considered the offender's minimal criminal record, positive employment history, and expressions of remorse, balancing these against the gravity of bringing a hidden combat knife to a social gathering.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility set at the minimum 10 years.

The accused challenged the validity of two search warrants issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act on the basis that they violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court conducted a Garofoli application to determine whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the issuance of the warrants.

The accused also brought a constitutional challenge to the "Step Six" procedure and sought the appointment of amicus curiae.

The court rejected the constitutional challenge, declined to appoint amicus, and found that the warrants could have been issued based on credible, compelling, and corroborated information from a confidential informant combined with independent police investigation, including OPP wiretap evidence of firearms trafficking.

The applicant, Patrick Benson, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on secondary grounds following a bail hearing.

He argued for a de novo hearing based on an alleged error by the Justice of the Peace and a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and an outbreak at the detention centre, coupled with his health issues.

The court found a material change in circumstances, warranting a de novo hearing.

However, after reviewing the proposed release plan, the applicant's extensive criminal record (including violent offences, breaches of court orders, and failures to appear), and the Crown's evidence regarding institutional COVID-19 protocols, the court dismissed the bail review application.

Detention was ordered on both primary (flight risk) and secondary (public safety) grounds, finding the proposed plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk posed by the applicant.

The applicant was convicted of second-degree murder by a jury.

Following the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Chouhan regarding the prospective application of the abolition of peremptory challenges, the applicant brought a motion for a mistrial, arguing the jury was improperly constituted.

The Superior Court dismissed the motion, holding that it was functus officio as the jury had already rendered its verdict and been discharged.

The court concluded that the case did not fall into the recognized exceptions allowing post-verdict changes, and the applicant's proper remedy was to appeal.

The accused was found guilty of seven counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in various controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, GHB, hydromorphone, and cannabis), two counts of possession of proceeds of crime, one count of careless storage of a firearm, and one count of possession of a loaded prohibited weapon.

The accused operated a drug trafficking enterprise in concert with a co-accused from a hair salon and later from a residential address.

The court imposed a sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, with consideration given to Gladue factors relating to the accused's Métis heritage, childhood trauma, and rehabilitation efforts, while maintaining that denunciation and deterrence remained paramount given the serious nature of the offences involving fentanyl and heroin trafficking combined with firearms possession.

The accused was charged with Impaired Operation or Care or Control of a Motor Vehicle and Over 80 following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown conceded Charter breaches relating to the delay in making an Approved Screening Device demand and the delay in reading rights to counsel after arrest.

The court applied the section 24(2) analysis and admitted the breath sample evidence, finding that admission would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was found guilty of both charges, with a conditional stay entered on the Impaired Operation conviction.

The accused was convicted of seven counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in various controlled substances (fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, GHB, hydromorphone, and cannabis), one count of possession of proceeds of crime under $5,000, one count of careless storage of a firearm, one count of possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and four counts of breach of firearms prohibition orders.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years imprisonment, including a 1-year consecutive term for the prohibition breaches, with time served credited on a 1.5:1 basis.

The sentencing emphasized the serious dangers of fentanyl and heroin trafficking, the toxic combination of drugs and firearms, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused, Richard Bennett, sought to introduce alternate suspect evidence in his first-degree murder trial.

The application concerned four individuals: Jason Bynoe, Nathanial Gibbs, Shaka Reid, and John Gardner.

The court dismissed the application regarding Bynoe and Gibbs due to insufficient connection to the crime, primarily relying on propensity evidence without sufficient opportunity or direct link.

However, the court granted the application in part, allowing the introduction of alternate suspect evidence for Shaka Reid and John Gardner, finding sufficient probative value based on the accused's own statements implicating Reid and Gardner's inconsistent statements, suspicious conduct, and unpublicized knowledge of crime details.

The court rejected the Crown's "additional suspect" argument, affirming that such evidence could address the accused's level of culpability.

The Crown sought to admit pre-death statements made by the deceased, Jean Paul Page, to five individuals in a first-degree murder trial.

The defence challenged the admissibility of these hearsay statements, arguing a lack of reliability and prejudicial effect, particularly concerning alleged drug transactions.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, requiring tests of both necessity and reliability.

The application was granted in part, allowing certain statements related to a rum purchase and the accused's presence at the deceased's apartment, but disallowing statements related to alleged marijuana transactions due to vagueness and lack of reliability, especially from one witness.

The accused, a pastor, was charged with sexual assault after the complainant alleged he touched her inappropriately during a private prayer session under the guise of a 'spiritual bath'.

The accused testified, denying the allegations and stating he had never heard of a spiritual bath and that his office door remained open during the session.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the accused's testimony straightforward and unshaken, raising a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

Following conviction for arson (causing damage by fire to property not wholly owned by the accused), the court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence and imposed six months imprisonment followed by two years probation.

The court found that while the first four prerequisites for a conditional sentence were met, the sentence would not be consistent with fundamental sentencing principles given the seriousness of arson, the absence of documented mental health issues (unlike comparable cases), and the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The court imposed a DNA order and restitution order of $31,741.96 to the insurance company.

Two accused charged with first degree murder applied for judicial interim release under s. 522 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on extensive circumstantial evidence, including surveillance footage, eyewitness accounts of the shooting, cell phone records, and DNA evidence linking the accused’s vehicle to the victim.

The court found the Crown’s case to be overwhelming and concluded there was a high probability of conviction.

The proposed sureties, largely family members, were found inadequate to provide meaningful supervision or ensure compliance with bail conditions.

Detention was ordered on the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, including concerns about flight risk, potential interference with the administration of justice, and maintaining public confidence in the justice system.

The accused were tried for fraud over $5,000 arising from a $100,000 loan obtained from private lenders under representations that the funds would be invested in a New Jersey land subdivision project through a corporation.

Evidence showed the investors relied on representations that both accused were partners or officers of the company and that the funds would be invested as described.

The court found the money was not invested as represented and that the accused misrepresented their roles and diverted funds from the corporate account without the investors’ knowledge.

The court rejected the defence of intoxication raised by one accused and found the investors suffered economic deprivation exceeding $5,000.

Both accused were convicted of fraud under s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following observations of erratic driving on Highway 401 and subsequent breath samples showing more than three times the legal limit.

The Crown conceded that the accused's Charter rights were breached: a strip search violated s.8 rights, and the lack of an interpreter violated s.10(b) rights.

The court found the impaired driving charge proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of evidence including poor driving, physical signs of impairment, and odour of alcohol.

The breath sample evidence was excluded under s.24(2) due to the Charter breaches, resulting in acquittal on the over 80 charge.

For the impaired driving charge, the court declined to stay proceedings despite the serious Charter violations, finding this was not one of the clearest cases warranting a stay.

Instead, the court imposed a nominal $1 fine and the mandatory one-year driving prohibition to reflect the seriousness of the illegal strip search while protecting the public interest.

The defendant corporation was charged with unlawfully disposing of oil field fluids in violation of the Oil, Gas and Salt Resources Act and related regulations.

The Crown sought to admit a Certificate of Analysis from Maxxam Analytics containing chemical analysis results of soil and vegetation samples collected from the defendant's well site.

The defendant objected to admission of the document as hearsay.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility under the business records exception to the hearsay rule under section 35 of the Ontario Evidence Act.

The court found that the Certificate of Analysis met all requirements for admission as a business record and admitted it into evidence.

An accused charged with impaired driving and over 80 brought an application for a conditional stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided.

The Crown opposed, arguing that since the accused faced only a fine and not incarceration, the application should be dismissed.

The court held that the absence of a jail sentence does not preclude an order for state-funded counsel where counsel is essential to a fair trial.

The court found the accused was indigent with no other means to retain counsel, and that counsel was essential given the complexity of the case (including issues regarding the two-hour limit for breath samples, potential statement voir dire, and a medical defence) and the accused's severe health issues that would impair his ability to participate effectively in his defence.

The proceedings were conditionally stayed pending provision of state-funded counsel.