Steven M. Hinkson

The applicant brought a Garofoli application seeking to quash a search warrant issued under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and to exclude evidence pursuant to sections 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant was charged with possession of a loaded and prohibited firearm, possession of a prohibited firearm, and possession of a controlled substance for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that the redacted Information to Obtain could not support the authorization and sought to have the court review the unredacted material.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient information upon which the issuing justice could have authorized the search, and therefore no section 8 Charter breach occurred.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown applied to introduce prior discreditable conduct of the accused, Felicity Altiman, in a second-degree murder trial.

The conduct involved threatening to stab a third party and brandishing a knife.

The court applied the four-part test for admitting such evidence, focusing on the probative value versus prejudicial effect.

The court allowed evidence of the accused possessing and brandishing a knife but excluded evidence of the specific threats made due to moral prejudice.

Additionally, evidence of the accused admitting to regularly robbing the deceased was conceded as admissible.

The applicants, Nimo Ali and Carlington Graham, jointly charged with human trafficking and child pornography offences, brought applications under s. 276 of the Criminal Code for leave to cross-examine complainants on aspects of their prior involvement in the sex trade with an unconnected third party.

The Crown opposed.

The court allowed the applications in part, permitting cross-examination on specific inconsistencies and untruths related to the complainants' prior knowledge and involvement in the sex trade (e.g., taking photos for online ads, knowledge of Leo List), but prohibited questions that would invoke the "twin myths" (i.e., that prior sexual activity makes a complainant more likely to have consented or less worthy of belief).

The court emphasized that the cross-examination must be tightly controlled and accompanied by mid-trial and final jury instructions.

S.T. applied for a stay of proceedings, arguing that his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated due to delay.

The total delay from the information being sworn to the anticipated end of trial was 955 days (31 months and 12 days).

The Crown argued for 468 days of defence delay, which would bring the net delay below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court attributed 36 days of defence delay for not scheduling a Crown Pre-trial (CPT) earlier despite sufficient initial disclosure, 175 days for not proceeding with a Judicial Pre-trial (JPT) due to missing videotaped disclosure (which the court found was not essential to move the case forward), and 257 days for defence unavailability for earlier trial dates offered by the Crown.

The total defence delay was calculated as 468 days, resulting in a net delay of 487 days (16.01 months), which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court found that the defence did not demonstrate a sustained effort to expedite the proceedings.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

This ruling addresses Crown applications in a human trafficking trial for two complainants, aged 15 and 16 at the time of the alleged offences, to testify from outside the courtroom.

The applications were brought under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, which permits such orders to facilitate a full and candid account or in the interest of the proper administration of justice.

The court considered the complainants' anxiety and fear, particularly one who experienced panic attacks during the preliminary hearing.

The court noted the lowered threshold for such orders following a 2015 amendment to the Criminal Code.

Both applications were granted, subject to technical transmission quality, with instructions to the jury not to draw adverse inferences from the use of testimonial aids.

Jabir Khan was convicted of possession of a restricted firearm and occupation of a motor vehicle knowing it contained an unregistered restricted firearm.

The offences involved a sawed-off shotgun with ammunition, which Khan took as a favour for a friend.

The Crown sought a 4-year sentence, while the defence proposed 2.5 years, potentially as a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including Khan's lengthy criminal record, multiple lifetime firearms prohibitions, and the dangerous nature of the weapon.

Mitigating factors included 26 months of house arrest bail, pre-trial custody credit, significant gaps in his criminal record, current employment, and expressed remorse.

The court imposed a global sentence of 3 years, resulting in 2 years and 323 days remaining to be served after credit for pre-trial custody.

A concurrent 12-month sentence was imposed for the vehicle offence.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime firearms prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-contact order with the co-accused while in custody.

The accused, Jabir Khan, was charged with possession of a restricted firearm and occupation of a motor vehicle knowing it contained an unregistered restricted firearm.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved the knowledge component of the possession counts.

The accused testified he believed the duffel bag he received contained cocaine, not a firearm.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, citing inconsistencies with the size of the bag, the implausibility of the false story, and detailed knowledge revealed in wiretap conversations, including the involvement of Nelson's girlfriend in transferring the firearm.

The lack of effort to disguise the firearm also indicated the accused's knowledge.

The court concluded that the accused knowingly accepted the transfer of the sawed-off shotgun and ammunition.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the search of his vehicle under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown sought to establish that police had reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant based on evidence from a wiretap investigation into a jewelry store robbery.

The defendant argued that certain information was inadmissible and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish reasonable grounds.

The court found that the admissible evidence, including wiretap intercepts discussing the movement of a firearm, observations of a meeting between the defendant's vehicle and a suspect, and subsequent communications, provided a sufficient objective basis for the arrest and search.

The applicant challenged the warrantless seizure of his cellular phone subscriber information obtained by police during a Part VI wiretap authorization for a robbery investigation.

The applicant was not a suspect and was not named in the authorization.

Police obtained his subscriber information after intercepting an innocuous conversation between the applicant and a named target.

The court found that the seizure violated s. 8 of the Charter as it was not authorized by law.

The assistance order under s. 487.02 does not authorize expansion of investigations to unnamed persons without reasonable grounds.

The court excluded the subscriber information and any derivative evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach serious and that admission would undermine public confidence in the rule of law.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter, arguing that police lacked lawful authority to search cell phones and intercept conversations.

The court dismissed the application, with written reasons to follow, to allow counsel to prepare for the upcoming trial.

The court delivered reasons for sentence for three co-accused, David Kawal, Tyrel Nicholson, and Devonte Rowe, involved in a botched robbery and kidnapping scheme.

Kawal was convicted of attempted murder of a police officer, robbery with a firearm, and kidnapping with a firearm.

Nicholson pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, kidnapping with a firearm, and breach of recognizance.

Rowe was convicted of robbery and kidnapping simpliciter.

The judge emphasized the gravity of handgun violence and offences against police officers, applying principles of general deterrence and denunciation.

Kawal received a life sentence with normal parole eligibility.

Nicholson was sentenced to 10 years (63 months actual after pre-trial credit).

Rowe received a 4-year sentence (time served) based on a joint submission.

The court declined to delay parole for Kawal, citing the parole board's superior position to assess rehabilitation.

During a first-degree murder trial where identification was the sole issue, the defence sought to allow the jury a closer physical view of the accused's eyes.

The only eyewitness had described the shooter as having "colourful eyes," and the defence argued the current courtroom configuration prevented the jury from properly assessing this evidence.

The Crown opposed, contending the request was a formal "view" under s. 652 of the Criminal Code or amounted to calling new evidence.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, clarifying that a jury's observation of an accused's physical appearance constitutes "real evidence" and is distinct from a formal "view." The court ruled that the jury should be permitted a closer view of the accused's eyes to ensure a fair trial and proper assessment of the evidence, noting that the accused's right to a fair trial should not be contingent on courtroom layout.

The accused, Norine Tulloch, was found guilty by a jury of possession of 260 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a three-year federal penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, mitigating factors (remorse, family support, business prospects) and aggravating factors (prior conditional sentence for a similar offence, association with drug trade).

The court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day to be served in a provincial reformatory, followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders for a DNA sample, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized currency and a notebook.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement following an incident at the complainant's home.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony, corroborating evidence from her boyfriend regarding her emotional state immediately after the incident, and text messages sent by the accused the day after the alleged assault.

The accused testified that the sexual contact was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault but acquitted him of unlawful confinement, finding that while the Crown proved non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt, it failed to establish the requisite intent to confine.

The accused, Ryan Wilson Christiansen, was found guilty by a jury of possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime ($21,250).

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant quantities of drugs, the sophisticated nature of the operation, and a prior trafficking conviction.

Mitigating factors included the accused's age (31), family support, personal strengths, employment history, learning disability, and the recent suicide of his wife.

The court emphasized general and specific deterrence as primary sentencing principles for drug trafficking.

After considering pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions, the court imposed a total effective sentence of five years and nine months imprisonment.

Ancillary orders included forfeiture of proceeds of crime and drugs, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and a DNA order.

The applicant sought to quash a general warrant authorizing surreptitious entry into a commercial room used to store suspected narcotics and to exclude resulting evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court reviewed whether the issuing justice had reasonable grounds to authorize the warrant under s. 487.01(1) of the Criminal Code based on an Information to Obtain supported by confidential informants and police surveillance.

Applying the deferential standard of warrant review, the court held that the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence that could reasonably support issuance of the warrant.

The informant information was corroborated by surveillance and other investigative steps linking the applicant and his associate to the location.

The court found no Charter breach and declined to exclude the evidence.

The applicant sought to quash a general warrant authorizing covert police entry into a commercial storage room and to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging a breach of s. 8.

The court first addressed whether the applicant had standing to challenge the search by demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises.

Although the lease for the room was in the name of a business partner, the applicant had keys, used the space for joint business storage, and exercised practical access and control.

Applying the totality of the circumstances analysis from Supreme Court jurisprudence, the court held that the applicant had a sufficient expectation of privacy.

The applicant therefore had standing to challenge the warrant and proceed to the second stage of the application.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning three accused charged with unlawfully importing cocaine into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought to commit all three accused as parties to the importation offence and/or of conspiring to import cocaine.

The evidence established that a young woman was provided with a free trip to Jamaica, where she was instructed to return with a suitcase containing over 1.4 kilograms of cocaine.

The court applied the test for preliminary inquiries, examining whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty.

The decision addresses the roles of each accused in facilitating the importation scheme, the doctrine of innocent agents, and the elements of conspiracy.

The accused was convicted of multiple firearms offences, including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, arising from his participation in a home invasion robbery.

He also pleaded guilty to breaching two firearms prohibition orders and two probation orders.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence, while the accused sought the mandatory minimum of 3 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for gun violence, but applying the totality principle and considering the accused's youth.

The court also granted enhanced credit of 1.5:1 for pre-sentence custody due to onerous conditions.