Stephen James White

The court considered whether Mohamed Siad should be designated a dangerous offender following a series of violent offences, primarily against intimate partners and family members.

After reviewing Siad’s history of escalating violence, repeated breaches of court orders, failed attempts at rehabilitation, and psychiatric evidence, the court found that Siad’s conduct was intractable and that he posed a high risk of future violence.

The court designated Siad a dangerous offender and imposed a global sentence of five years’ incarceration (after credit for pretrial custody), followed by a seven-year long-term supervision order, with ancillary orders including DNA and weapons prohibitions.

The accused was convicted of multiple firearms offences and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking after fleeing police and hiding two loaded handguns and 127.75 grams of fentanyl in a residential backyard.

The court considered the accused's serious criminal record, including prior convictions for armed robbery and murder, and the significant danger posed to the public.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 15 years, reduced to 13 years and 2 months after crediting pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The accused was charged with 10 counts relating to the possession of two loaded handguns and 127.75 grams of fentanyl.

The charges arose after a high-speed police chase ended in a collision, from which a man fled on foot, hiding the firearms and drugs in a nearby backyard before being arrested.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the fleeing man.

The court found that the totality of the circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance, clothing, and DNA, overwhelmingly established that the accused was the man who fled the vehicle and possessed the contraband.

The appellant, Todd Kehoe, appealed his conviction for trafficking in fentanyl patches, knowingly causing a person to use forged fentanyl patches, and obtaining merchandise by false pretenses.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's s. 24(2) ruling, which dismissed an application to exclude evidence arising from an alleged s. 8 Charter breach.

The Court of Appeal did not need to definitively rule on the s. 8 issue, finding no error in the trial judge's s. 24(2) analysis, which properly engaged with a Grant analysis and was owed deference.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and aggravated assault following a stabbing at a street festival.

The accused and the victim, who did not know each other, engaged in a verbal altercation regarding the welfare of a puppy.

The victim, who was larger and older, unexpectedly punched the accused in the head.

In response, the accused drew a folding knife and stabbed the victim.

The court applied the framework for self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code and found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's actions were unreasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The offender was convicted of trafficking in fentanyl, using forged fentanyl patches, and obtaining merchandise by false pretence.

He participated in a scheme where he returned forged patches to a pharmacy under Ontario's patch-for-patch program to obtain new fentanyl patches, which he then trafficked.

The court rejected the argument that the trafficking was merely sharing among prescription holders, finding it to be a sophisticated commercial operation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence due to the extreme dangers of fentanyl, the court sentenced the offender to 26 months in penitentiary for trafficking, with concurrent 18-month sentences for the forgery and false pretence offences.

The applicants, charged with fraud and conspiracy, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay from arrest to anticipated trial completion was 60.5 months, significantly exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

While a previous s. 11(b) application was dismissed, finding the case complex and acknowledging transitional circumstances, a subsequent 11-month adjournment was caused by the unavailability of judges due to medical reasons and systemic resource shortages.

The court found that while judicial illness is a discrete exceptional circumstance, the extended 11-month delay was primarily attributable to scarce judicial resources, which does not qualify as an exceptional circumstance under the Jordan framework.

Consequently, the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonable delay, and the applications for a stay of proceedings were granted.

The accused were arrested after police conducted a high-risk takedown of a parked vehicle based on an uncorroborated confidential informant tip alleging cocaine was inside.

Officers arrested the occupants at gunpoint and searched the vehicle, discovering cocaine and a loaded prohibited firearm.

The court held the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest or search, as the tip was vague, the source’s credibility was not established, and there was no meaningful corroboration.

The warrantless arrest and search breached the accused’s rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the s. 24(2) framework from Grant, the court found the police conduct deliberate and serious and excluded the evidence, resulting in acquittals.