5 total
Acquittals entered because failed renovations did not prove criminal fraud beyond reasonable doubt.
The accused was tried on multiple counts of fraud over $5000 arising from residential renovation contracts, deposits taken from customers, and extensive delays or non-completion of work.
Applying the fraud analysis in Théroux and the credibility framework in W.(D.), the court found that deprivation was established in many instances but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in objectively dishonest acts or had the required subjective mens rea.
The court accepted that many jobs were derailed by supplier shortages, labour instability, GreenOn program disruption, weather, illness, family tragedy, permit issues, customer changes, and eventual licence revocation.
Similar fact reasoning, banking records, and GreenOn paperwork did not convert poor business practices and civil disputes into criminal fraud on this evidentiary record.
The accused was acquitted on all remaining counts.
Jordan ceiling exceeded after deductions; stay to issue.
The accused applied for a stay of proceedings in a multi-count fraud prosecution on the basis that the prosecution exceeded the presumptive ceiling under s. 11(b) of the Charter.
The court conducted a detailed Jordan analysis over a five-year timeline, allocating delay among defence-caused delay, discrete events, and institutional delay, with particular attention to COVID-19 disruptions, repeated judicial unavailability, changes of defence counsel, and a restart of the trial before a new judge.
After deducting 693 days of defence-caused delay and 1,002 days for discrete events from the total 2,264 days, the court found remaining delay of 569 days, exceeding the 18-month ceiling by 21 days.
The court held the accused's s. 11(b) right had been breached and stated that a stay of proceedings would be entered.
Similar fact evidence admitted across fraud counts; collusion theory lacked reality.
In a criminal fraud prosecution involving multiple complainants and home improvement contracts, the Crown sought a cross-count ruling permitting the evidence on the counts to apply across the indictment as similar fact evidence.
The defence conceded the applicable framework except for alleged collusion, arguing that complainants' views were shaped by a Facebook group, media coverage, and a public protest.
The court held that the complainants' subjective belief that they had been deceived was legally irrelevant to the fraud mens rea analysis, which turns on the accused's subjective knowledge and the objective character of the deceitful conduct.
Finding no evidence and no air of reality to collusion, the court granted the Crown's application.
The accused received a 12-month conditional sentence for failing to remain and obstructing justice after fatally striking a child.
The accused, Christopher Filiault, pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of a fatal accident and obstructing justice after his vehicle struck and killed a seven-year-old child.
The court considered aggravating factors, including the profound impact on the victim's family and the accused's attempts to hide his involvement, and mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, genuine remorse, and positive prospects for rehabilitation.
The central issue was whether a conditional sentence was appropriate, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.
The court ultimately imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict house arrest and GPS monitoring, followed by 12 months probation, along with a 3-year driving prohibition, DNA order, and weapons prohibition.
Breathalyzer results were excluded and the accused acquitted due to multiple serious Charter breaches.
Dr. Rajkumar was charged with impaired driving.
The defence alleged multiple Charter breaches (s. 8, 9, 10(b)) related to the breath demand immediacy, the right to counsel, and unreasonable detention ("overholding").
The court found that the breath screening demand was not immediate, breaching s. 8 and s. 10(b), and that the right to counsel was not properly facilitated, breaching s. 10(b).
The Crown conceded a s. 9 breach for overholding.
Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court found the cumulative breaches serious and their impact significant, outweighing society's interest in adjudication on the merits.
The breath testing results were excluded from evidence, leading to an acquittal.
