S. Thompson

A provincial court judge presiding over a lengthy trial involving charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in Toronto was appointed to the Superior Court of Justice mid-trial.

The Crown argued the judge retained jurisdiction to complete the trial under the Provincial Offences Act, while the defence argued the appointment resulted in loss of jurisdiction.

The court found that the judge had lost jurisdiction to continue the trial, as the Provincial Offences Act lacks a provision comparable to section 669.3 of the Criminal Code permitting continuing jurisdiction upon appointment to another court.

A new trial was ordered.

Adrian Duffus challenged the mandatory minimum sentencing provision in s. 6(3)(a)(i) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) for importing a Schedule II substance (marijuana), arguing it violated s. 12 of the Charter as cruel and unusual punishment.

The court found that while the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate to Duffus's specific circumstances, it was grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios involving small amounts of marijuana imported for sharing, without financial gain, or by offenders with exceptional personal hardships.

Applying the Oakes test, the court declared the one-year mandatory minimum imprisonment for importing a Schedule II substance for trafficking unconstitutional and of no force and effect.

Duffus was subsequently sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for importing 5 kilograms of marijuana, considering mitigating factors.

Defendants charged with offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act brought applications alleging violations of their Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, determining that while the net delay of approximately 44 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice trials, the Crown established exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The court found the case was particularly complex due to the nature of the evidence and issues involved, and that the transitional exceptional circumstance applied to cases in the system when Jordan was released.

The applications were dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 844 grams of heroin into Canada.

She swallowed 63 pellets of heroin at Toronto Pearson International Airport upon arrival from Aruba.

The Crown sought a sentence of 7 years minus pre-trial detention credit of approximately 2 years and 2 months, resulting in 4 years and 10 months additional incarceration.

The defence argued for a lower sentence of 4 years minus pre-trial detention based on extraordinary circumstances, including the defendant's traumatic background, vulnerability, lack of personal gain, and the life-threatening method of importation.

The court imposed the Crown's requested sentence of 7 years total, with credit for pre-trial detention, resulting in 4 years and 10 months additional incarceration, finding no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances to depart from established sentencing ranges for heroin importation.

The defendant brought a motion to strike her guilty plea to importing heroin after statements in a pre-sentence report suggested she had been forced to commit the offence and sexually assaulted by those forcing her.

The defendant also alleged the police induced her confession by promising to send her back to Aruba if she admitted guilt.

The court found the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and fully informed, and that the defendant understood the possible defences available to her and the consequences of her plea.

The motion was dismissed and the plea was upheld.

This is a trial decision on a voir dire regarding the admissibility of expert evidence in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a stage collapse at a concert venue that resulted in a fatality.

The defendant Live Nation Canada Inc. challenged the qualification of two Ministry of Labour engineers to provide expert opinion evidence on the cause of the stage collapse.

The court found that both experts met the threshold requirement to testify, applying the test established in White Burgess v. Abbott and Haliburton Co. The court rejected arguments that the experts' involvement in the investigation, their employment relationship with the Ministry of Labour, and their participation in interviews with defendants undermined their independence and impartiality.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being denied bail on charges of importing cocaine, trafficking oxycodone, and conspiring to import firearms.

The reviewing judge applied the deferential standard of review from St. Cloud, finding that the Justice of the Peace did not make any clearly inappropriate decisions in weighing the evidence, including wiretaps, flight risk, and the proposed release plan.

The court also refused to admit fresh evidence from the applicant's ex-wife, as no due diligence was shown.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to remain in custody.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis that the delay to trial violated his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total time from charge to anticipated trial was nearly two years.

Applying the framework from R. v. Morin, the court analyzed the length of delay, reasons for delay, waiver, and prejudice.

Although the court found approximately 15.5 months of Crown and institutional delay, this remained within the 16–18 month guideline for matters proceeding through two levels of court.

While the accused experienced some prejudice due to bail conditions and separation from family, the court concluded the prejudice attributable to delay was not significant enough to outweigh society’s interest in trying a serious drug importation offence.

Three accused persons charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act brought a Charter application alleging violation of their s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Crown laid four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking against each accused involving cocaine, MDMA, methamphetamine, and marijuana.

The case was initially commenced in Toronto but was transferred to Brampton where the offences occurred.

The preliminary inquiry commenced on April 14, 2015, but collapsed after the Crown received analysis certificates showing the alleged methamphetamine was not a controlled substance.

The Crown amended the charges to reduce cocaine and MDMA to simple possession and elected to proceed summarily.

The court found the Crown failed to act diligently in preparing its case, failed to disclose critical certificates in a timely manner, and caused unnecessary delay through improper venue selection.

The total delay of approximately 22 months, comprising 7.5 months of institutional delay and 6.5 months of Crown delay, exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months for provincial court matters.

The court found the accused suffered actual prejudice through stress and anxiety from facing unmeritorious trafficking charges for an extended period, increased legal fees, and restrictions on liberty.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a recognizance (x4), possession of marijuana, and possession of cocaine.

The Crown sought to introduce two certificates of an analyst pursuant to section 51 of the Controlled Drug and Substances Act to prove the nature of the substances seized.

The defence argued that the notice of intention to introduce the certificates was inadequate and confusing because it failed to specify which trial the certificates related to, given that the accused had other outstanding charges.

The court found the notice sufficient because the certificates contained identifying information (officer names and police seal numbers) that would have made clear which charges the notice related to, and there was no evidence that the accused had multiple outstanding charges on the date the notice was served.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession of cocaine following the seizure of approximately 73 grams of cocaine found on a kitchen counter during a police search of an apartment.

At the preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish that the accused was in possession of the cocaine.

The court found insufficient evidence to commit the accused to trial, specifically finding that while there was some evidence of identification and possible knowledge of the drugs' presence, there was no evidence that the accused had any control over the apartment or the items within it.

The accused was discharged on all charges.