S. Rebecca Shamai

The accused, Nathan Johnson, faced charges including child luring, communicating for sexual services, and distributing sexually explicit material.

The court heard a Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to lost evidence (chatlogs from a dating site).

The chatlogs, crucial for establishing the alleged victim's age as under 18, were deleted from the officer's device and the platform due to police inaction and delay in preservation efforts.

The court found the police officer's failure to preserve the evidence constituted unacceptable negligence, breaching the accused's Section 7 and 11(d) Charter rights to disclosure and a fair trial.

Consequently, the proceedings were stayed.

Two young men were charged with ten offences related to human trafficking, procuring, and sexual services offences occurring between September 1, 2014 and April 13, 2015.

The Crown's case rested almost entirely on the testimony of the complainant, a young woman with a history of mental health issues who had herself been charged with similar offences and made her complaint to police approximately one year after her own arrest.

The trial lasted nearly 27 months across 64 court days.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable due to significant contradictions with her prior statements, inconsistencies regarding key facts such as how she met the accused and her ownership of a vehicle, and most critically, Facebook Messenger communications that contradicted her account of meeting one of the accused.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove exploitation, which was essential to the human trafficking and material benefits charges.

All counts against both accused were dismissed.

The applicant brought a third party records application seeking production of therapeutic and counselling records relating to the complainant in a human trafficking prosecution.

The applicant sought to access records from the complainant's psychiatrist, hospital, and mental health treatment facility covering the period between the complainant's arrest in April 2015 and her police interview in April 2016.

The applicant argued the records were necessary to challenge the complainant's credibility and reliability, contending she had fabricated allegations during therapy to escape prosecution.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicant had failed to establish that the records were likely relevant to any issue at trial or to the competence of the witness.

Rossana Lim and her daughter Shannon Lim brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of section 11(b) (right to trial within a reasonable time).

The accused were charged with fraud-related offences and faced a trial date set for January 8, 2018, approximately 43 months and 9 days after the initial charge.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the delay exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months, it was justified by defence delay, case complexity, and the transitional exceptional circumstance of good faith plea negotiations conducted under the pre-Jordan legal framework.

The accused pleaded guilty to ten property and violent offences committed between February 8 and March 13, 2016, including theft of a motor vehicle, five robberies armed with a knife, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and administering a noxious substance.

The offences formed a crime spree in west-end Toronto.

The accused has an extensive criminal record with 21 prior sentencing events and 18.5 years of incarceration.

The court considered the accused's Aboriginal heritage (West Moberly First Nation), previously undisclosed due to fear of racism, along with systemic factors including childhood trauma, family violence, substance abuse, mental illness (multiple personality disorder and schizophrenia), and lack of support upon release from custody.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day in a reformatory facility plus three years probation, with credit for 27 months and one week of time served, resulting in an effective sentence of approximately four years and three months.

An Indigenous offender pleaded guilty to heroin trafficking offences and possession of proceeds of crime.

The sentencing proceeded through a sentencing circle, a restorative justice process involving the offender's family, community members, and an Elder.

The offender had completed residential rehabilitation treatment and demonstrated significant personal transformation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence on trafficking counts with concurrent probation, one day custody on possession for purpose of trafficking (credited for time served), and a concurrent twelve-month conditional sentence on the proceeds count.

The decision emphasizes restorative justice principles, the impact of intergenerational trauma on Indigenous offenders, and the connection between remorse and rehabilitation.

An appeal from a conviction under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2007 for acting as a motor vehicle dealer without being registered.

The trial was conducted ex parte in the absence of the defendant.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, finding that the trial judge failed to conduct the required inquiry into whether an ex parte trial was appropriate, particularly given the prosecution's intention to seek a custodial sentence.

The court found that the procedural history demonstrated inadequate notice to the defendant and no proper consideration of the defendant's right to be present at trial, amounting to a miscarriage of justice.

The Crown applied for an order permitting a complainant in a human trafficking case to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) from outside the courtroom, and to have a Human Trafficking Advocate sit close to her during testimony.

The accused opposed both aspects of the application.

The court granted the CCTV order but denied the request for the advocate's close presence.

The decision addresses the evidentiary threshold under the amended Section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, which changed from a "necessity" test to a "facilitate" test, and considers what evidence is required to support such applications.

The offender was convicted of possession of child pornography and luring a child under section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.

The offences occurred between August 1 and September 9, 2011, involving online sexual communications with a 13-year-old child.

The offender, an Aboriginal man with a history of childhood sexual abuse and bullying, claimed he intended to help the child avoid similar victimization.

The sentencing decision balanced denunciation and deterrence against principles of restraint and restorative justice, particularly given the offender's Aboriginal status and the relatively limited nature of the offences compared to typical child exploitation cases.

The defendant brought a second application under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to stay charges of impaired driving and "over 80" due to unreasonable delay.

The first application was dismissed in August 2016 when the anticipated trial completion was under 18 months.

By the time of the second application in February 2017, the total delay had exceeded 22 months.

The court found that the Crown failed to disclose critical evidence (an audio dispatch recording) despite repeated requests over many months, and that this disclosure failure was the primary cause of delay beyond the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown adduced no evidence of exceptional circumstances to justify the excess delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms alleging that the delay of approximately four years, nine months, and nine days between his charge and anticipated sentencing constituted an unconstitutional delay.

The applicant was charged with six counts of child pornography offences in November 2011 and was found guilty on two counts in February 2016.

The motion was brought in August 2016, following the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Jordan, which established new presumptive ceilings for trial delay.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases, the delay was justified under the transitional exceptional circumstances framework established in Jordan, as the parties had relied on the law as it previously existed for the majority of the delay period.

The defendant was charged with two counts of mischief to private property under section 430(4) of the Criminal Code for installing a concealed webcam in a condominium apartment that he leased and sublet to two women.

The defendant claimed the women were not in lawful occupancy and therefore had no right to lawful enjoyment of the property, and alternatively, that he acted with colour of right to protect his property.

The court found that the women were in lawful enjoyment of the residential premises despite the technical breach of lease terms, that privacy is a fundamental aspect of lawful enjoyment of a home, and that the defendant's installation and operation of the hidden camera constituted a wilful interference with that enjoyment.

The defendant's claim of colour of right was rejected as neither honest nor reasonable.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

A bartender and bar manager was charged with assault causing bodily harm after forcibly removing an intoxicated patron from a licensed establishment.

The defendant pleaded self-defence under Criminal Code section 34, arguing that the patron had made escalating threats of violence, including a death threat, after being cut off from service and asked to leave.

The court found that the defendant held a reasonable belief that force was being threatened against him, that his response was proportionate in the circumstances, and that his actions were justified both under the self-defence provision and under the Liquor Licence Act, which permits the use of necessary force to remove non-compliant patrons.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was convicted after trial of two counts of assault, one count of intimidation, and two counts of sexual assault.

The offences arose from a course of conduct spanning several months involving the complainant, a fellow college student.

The accused coerced the complainant into sex work to repay a purported debt from a failed drug transaction, used physical violence and threats to maintain control, and committed sexual assaults within their intimate relationship.

The court imposed a global sentence of 15 months imprisonment plus an $2,000 fine, followed by 18 months probation, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while considering the offender's youth and potential for rehabilitation.

The accused brought a Section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

Charged on April 14, 2015, with impaired driving and "over 80," the trial was set for September 26-27, 2016, representing approximately 17 months of delay.

The application was heard on July 13, 2016, shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada released its landmark decision in R. v. Jordan, which established an 18-month ceiling for delay in Ontario Court of Justice cases.

The court found that while the delay fell slightly below the presumptively reasonable threshold, the accused failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and the delay did not markedly exceed what was reasonably required.

The application was dismissed and the trial dates were upheld.

The accused applied for judicial interim release following a preliminary inquiry where he conceded orders to stand trial on serious charges including possession of prohibited firearms with ammunition, careless storage of weapons, possession of prohibited weapons and over-capacity magazines, possession of firearms obtained by commission of an offence, forcible confinement, kidnapping, pointing a firearm, and drug trafficking offences.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release on a substantial recognizance secured by his parents with electronic monitoring via ankle bracelet.

The court denied the application, finding that the accused had not shown cause for release on both secondary and tertiary grounds, citing concerns about the sureties' ability to supervise, the accused's demonstrated disrespect for court orders, and the serious nature of the offences.

A 20-year-old first-time offender pleaded guilty to two counts of trafficking in MDMA involving small quantities (3.09 and 13 grams).

The Crown sought a nine-month custodial sentence.

The court suspended the passing of sentence and imposed probation, finding that incarceration would not serve the sentencing objectives and would be disproportionate given the offender's youth, early guilty plea, positive pre-sentence report, demonstrated remorse, rehabilitation efforts, strong family support, and excellent academic performance.

The court emphasized individualized proportionality and the principle of restraint in the use of imprisonment.

The accused was charged with driving with an excessive proportion of alcohol in his system (over 80 offence).

Following conviction and successful appeal, the matter proceeded to retrial.

The accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the approved screening device test was administered in violation of section 8 of the Charter due to the officer's failure to comply with mandatory police procedures and guidelines regarding device calibration, self-testing, location of testing, and in-car camera system activation.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) and dismissed the charge.

The appellant appealed her speeding conviction from May 29, 2014, on grounds of unreasonable delay affecting her right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The original conviction was registered on January 31, 2011, followed by an appeal and new trial.

The appellant argued that delays in obtaining trial transcripts and the timing of the appeal process constituted unreasonable delay.

The court found that the delay issue had been previously addressed in the first appeal before Justice Mocha, and that the facts regarding the delay were not clearly established.

The court also rejected allegations of misdirection, bias, and misapplication of stare decisis.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a conviction for Proceed Contrary to Sign at Intersection under Section 144(9) of the Highway Traffic Act, which was entered in her absence at an Early Resolution Meeting on March 22, 2013.

The appellant claimed she received no notice of the Early Resolution Meeting and never requested one.

Following an initial conviction on December 13, 2013, the appellant successfully applied for re-opening on January 31, 2013, after which the court directed an Early Resolution Meeting to be scheduled.

The appellant contended she was not notified of this rescheduled meeting.

The court found that absent evidence of proper notice to the appellant of the proceeding that directly affected her rights, and given her uncontested assertion that she was unaware of the proceeding, the conviction must be set aside and a new trial ordered.