Susannah Chung-Alvares

The offender pleaded guilty to receiving a material benefit from sexual services and assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner.

The Crown sought a global sentence of nine years, arguing the offender procured the complainant and exerted coercive control.

The court rejected the Crown's characterization, finding the offender did not procure the complainant or use violence to force her into the sex trade, though the relationship was exploitative and he assaulted her twice.

Emphasizing the offender's youth, lack of significant record, and strong rehabilitative prospects, the court imposed a global sentence of two years' imprisonment, with 13 months' credit for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

The accused applied for the production of private records relating to the complainant, specifically data extracted from the complainant's phone.

Following a Stage One order where the records were produced to the court for review, the court conducted a Stage Two analysis to determine if production to the defence was necessary in the interests of justice.

Balancing the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy rights, the court ordered some records produced, some produced with redactions, and others withheld.

Brittney Hawboldt pleaded guilty to multiple offences including reckless discharge of a prohibited firearm, possession of a restricted firearm, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and various breaches of release orders.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the serious nature of the firearm and driving offences in a public place, and mitigating factors including her guilty plea, remorse, difficult childhood, and rehabilitative efforts.

The Crown sought a global sentence of six years.

The court imposed a global sentence of six years, granting significant credit for pre-sentence custody under harsh conditions and for time spent under stringent bail conditions, resulting in a balance of three years and one month remaining to be served.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and a 10-year driving prohibition, while declining restitution and victim fine surcharge.

The applicants, charged with firearms and drug offences, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The trial was scheduled to conclude 41 months after charges were laid.

The court deducted 280 days as an exceptional circumstance due to the COVID-19 pandemic and 470 days as defence delay due to counsel unavailability when the Crown and court were ready.

The net delay was calculated at 17 months, well below the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court matters.

The court found the delay was not markedly longer than it reasonably should have been and dismissed the application.

This criminal trial concerned a historical allegation of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The complainant alleged that the accused, her cousin, assaulted her when she was 5 and he was 15, disclosing the event 18 years later.

The case relied heavily on the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused, with no corroborating physical or forensic evidence.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility, the court found that while the complainant's evidence was persuasive, and the accused's denial was lacking in some respects, collective concerns regarding the delayed disclosure, the complainant's evolving memory, and the absence of corroboration prevented the Crown from proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

In this omnibus Charter application arising from a human trafficking and sexual assault prosecution, the applicants challenged multiple search warrants, production orders, arrests, detentions, right to counsel breaches, delayed bail appearances, alleged racial bias, negligent investigation, and disclosure failures.

The court found several serious Charter breaches, including invalid judicial authorizations relating to one dwelling, one phone, and one production order, unreasonable manner of search at one residence, multiple right to counsel breaches, and unlawful delay in bringing two accused before a justice.

A stay of proceedings was granted to one applicant because cumulative and partly systemic misconduct would further prejudice the integrity of the justice system if the prosecution continued.

Another applicant obtained exclusion of his police statement and cellphone evidence under s. 24(2), while the remaining applications for a stay were dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of manslaughter following an armed home invasion that resulted in the fatal shooting of an unarmed victim.

The court found the accused was a party to the robbery and had subjective foresight that a loaded gun would be used, though it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the shooter.

Weighing the significant aggravating factors of an armed home invasion against the accused's youth, first-time adult offender status, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to lockdowns and COVID-19, the court imposed a sentence of 8.5 years.

After applying Summers and Duncan credits, the remaining sentence to serve was 39 months.

The accused were charged with drug trafficking and firearms offences following a warrantless arrest and search of their vehicle.

The arresting officer claimed to have observed hand-to-hand drug transactions from a distance, but his testimony was found to be highly unreliable, inconsistent, and physically impossible in several respects.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, rendering the arrest and subsequent search unlawful and in breach of ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the seized drugs and firearm under s. 24(2), resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

This is a detention review application brought by H.K., seeking release from custody pending trial.

This was the third bail hearing for the applicant, and the second review.

The applicant argued for release based on alleged material changes in circumstances, including a new proposal for electronic monitoring, the duration of his custody (nearly 16 months), delays in his preliminary hearing due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the rising number of COVID-19 cases in Ontario and at his detention facility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that none of the presented factors constituted a material change in circumstances sufficient to grant jurisdiction for a de novo review of the previous detention order.

The court emphasized that the electronic monitoring proposal failed the "new evidence" criteria for due diligence, the passage of time was not significant enough, the preliminary hearing delay was a relitigated issue with a new date now set, and the general rise in COVID-19 cases did not demonstrate a specific material effect on the applicant.

The detention was upheld on secondary and tertiary grounds due to an inadequate release plan and ongoing public safety concerns.

H.K. sought a review of his detention order under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing material changes due to the COVID-19 pandemic, reduced privileges, and preliminary hearing adjournment.

The court found COVID-19 constituted a material change, requiring a de novo analysis.

However, the proposed surety (H.K.'s father, IK) was deemed unsuitable due to credibility issues and lack of influence over H.K., leading to a substantial risk of reoffending.

The court also found that H.K.'s detention was necessary on tertiary grounds to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, despite his pre-existing medical condition and the heightened risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities, given the inadequate release plan.

The application for detention review was dismissed.

The Crown brought an application to designate the offender as a dangerous offender following his convictions for aggravated assault and assault with a weapon stemming from a pre-planned attack on a fellow inmate.

The offender was already serving a 15-year sentence for prior violent offences.

The court declined to designate him a dangerous offender, finding that psychiatric evidence could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that his violent conduct was intractable, given the impossibility of predicting his risk 15 years into the future when his current sentences expire.

Instead, the court designated him a long-term offender, imposing a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order and a determinate sentence of 2.5 years consecutive for the predicate offences.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his residence, arguing that the search warrant was invalid due to deliberate misrepresentations and omissions in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The court found that the affiant deliberately misled the issuing justice regarding the confidential informant's criminal history, motivation, and the corroborative police observations.

After excising the inaccurate information, the court concluded that the remaining ITO was not sufficiently reliable to support the warrant, resulting in a breach of the applicant's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter due to the serious nature of the police misconduct.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine in Milton on February 27, 2015.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty and sought to exclude evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court conducted a blended hearing on both the Charter application and the trial.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for marijuana possession based on the smell of burnt marijuana and visible flakes in the vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unbelievable and found that the accused's right to counsel was not infringed.

The court found the accused's statements to police were made voluntarily.

The court convicted the accused of possession of cocaine, finding all essential elements of possession established beyond a reasonable doubt.