Susan Kim

Barrington Grant brought an application under sections 8 and 24(2) of the Charter to challenge the validity of a search warrant for a rental vehicle he was driving and to exclude a firearm found therein.

The court addressed whether Grant had standing to challenge the warrant and whether the Information to Obtain (ITO) properly disclosed reasonable probable grounds for the search.

The court found that Grant did have standing but concluded that the ITO, when read holistically, established the necessary reasonable grounds, despite some conditional language used by the affiant.

Consequently, the application to invalidate the search warrant failed, and the firearm was deemed admissible at trial.

The applicants brought a motion to exclude wiretap evidence obtained during a police investigation into the manufacturing and trafficking of converted firearms.

They argued that the police failed to demonstrate the existence of a criminal organization, failed to establish investigative necessity, and engaged in a pattern of misrepresentation that subverted the pre-authorization process.

The court found that while there were insufficient grounds to establish a criminal organization and some misrepresentations existed in the affidavits, the investigative necessity requirement was met for the firearms offences.

After excising the misleading information, the court concluded that the authorizing judge could still have granted the authorizations.

The court declined to exercise its residual discretion to exclude the evidence, finding no deliberate attempt to subvert the prior authorization process.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with offering to transfer a firearm and offering to traffic in cocaine based on intercepted telephone calls and text messages.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence and expert testimony on coded language to argue the accused made genuine offers.

The court found the Crown failed to prove the jurisdictional averment that the offences occurred in Ontario.

Furthermore, the court held the intercepted communications only showed the accused acting as a conduit for information, not making a genuine offer to transfer a firearm or sell cocaine.

The accused was acquitted.

Farzana Qureshi was convicted by a jury of drug and firearms-related offences, and pleaded guilty to three drug charges.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a significant criminal record and breach of prohibition orders, alongside extraordinary mitigating factors, particularly the offender's significant rehabilitation efforts since her arrest.

The Crown sought a five-year global sentence, while the defence sought time served (approximately 30 months).

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 30 months, but, in light of extensive pre-trial custody and house arrest credit, issued a suspended sentence of time served plus two years of probation, emphasizing the unique and compelling evidence of rehabilitation.

The offender, Lauralee Walker, was found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to traffic cocaine and possession of the proceeds of crime.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the nature of crack cocaine, and significant mitigating factors, such as the offender's lack of prior record, young age, strong family ties, employment history, limited role in the offences, and the context of domestic abuse by her co-accused.

The court also noted the offender's remorse and voluntary disassociation from the co-accused.

Despite the general requirement for custodial sentences in crack cocaine trafficking cases, the court found that the unique circumstances, including over 600 days under restrictive bail conditions, warranted a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA sample order, and victim surcharges.

The offender, an anesthesiologist, was convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault against female patients during surgical procedures while the victims were sedated and unable to resist.

The court emphasized the extreme breach of trust inherent in abusing a position of medical authority over vulnerable patients in an operating room.

Aggravating factors included the number of victims, the sexual nature of the assaults, the deliberate exploitation of sedation, and the profound psychological harm to victims.

While the offender had no prior criminal record and strong community support, the court held that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount.

Applying the totality principle to multiple counts, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

The accused, an anesthesiologist, was charged with 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients.

The assaults allegedly occurred while the patients were under conscious sedation during various surgeries.

The defence argued that the accused lacked the opportunity to commit the offences undetected and that the anesthetic drugs caused sexual hallucinations, rendering the complainants' memories unreliable.

The court rejected these arguments, finding that the operating room draping provided sufficient concealment and that the drugs administered do not cause hallucinations of sexual assault.

Relying on the objective improbability of coincidence as similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty on all 21 counts.

The accused, an anesthesiologist, was charged with 21 counts of sexual assault against female patients under his care during surgeries.

The Crown alleged that the accused used the cover of surgical draping and the patients' state of conscious sedation to commit the assaults undetected.

The defence argued that the assaults were physically impossible, could not have occurred without detection, and that the patients' memories were unreliable due to drug-induced hallucinations.

The court rejected the defence arguments, finding that the accused had the opportunity to commit the offences and that the drugs administered do not cause sexual hallucinations.

Relying on the objective improbability of coincidence as similar fact evidence, the court found the accused guilty on all 21 counts.

In a criminal trial involving multiple allegations of sexual assault by an anesthesiologist against sedated patients during surgery, the court conducted a voir dire to determine the admissibility and scope of defence expert evidence concerning the effects of psychotropic drugs on perception and memory.

Applying the framework from R. v. Mohan and R. v. Abbey, the court assessed relevance, necessity, absence of exclusionary rules, and proper qualification, followed by a cost‑benefit analysis of probative value versus prejudice.

The court held that three defence experts—including two anesthesiologists and a psychiatrist—met the threshold admissibility requirements.

Although limitations existed regarding aspects of their expertise, those limitations affected weight rather than admissibility.

The experts’ testimony was admitted subject to general limits preventing opinions outside their expertise, including speculation about surgical practices or motives for the alleged offences.