Susan Von Achten

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired driving, arguing the trial judge erred in finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make an arrest and breath demand.

The appellant contended the officer only had a 'suspicion' of impairment.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court reviewed the trial judge's findings, which relied on the severe unexplained collision, the appellant's disorientation, unsteadiness, odour of alcohol, and admission of consumption.

The court found no error in the trial judge's conclusion that the officer possessed both a subjective belief and objective grounds for impairment.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused were charged with possessing marihuana, cocaine, methamphetamine and ketamine for the purpose of trafficking.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the court discharged both accused on all four counts.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence.

While the court found sufficient evidence that the accused had resided at the premises where the drugs were discovered, the Crown failed to establish sufficient evidence that the accused had knowledge of and control over the controlled substances on or about the date of the search.

The absence of evidence regarding the accused's whereabouts in the days preceding the search, combined with the presence of identification documents belonging to unknown persons and evidence of other criminal activity at the premises, created reasonable alternative explanations for the presence of the drugs that did not involve the accused.

The offender was convicted of importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after receiving a controlled delivery of over one kilogram of heroin from India.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, noting the offender's significant role in the commercial scheme.

The offender was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment on all counts to be served concurrently, reduced to 10 years and 7 months after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The appellant tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for misrepresenting income, permitting illegal acts, and impairing the safety of others after police found loaded handguns belonging to her boyfriend in her unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board applied the correct civil standard of proof and had sufficient circumstantial evidence to conclude the tenant knew about the guns and the occupant's presence.

The Court also held that the 'best interests of the child' test does not apply to the Board's relief from eviction analysis under section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The applicant sought a mistrial after being convicted of importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession for the purpose of trafficking.

He alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, claiming trial counsel prevented him from testifying and coerced him into signing written instructions declining to testify.

The court reviewed affidavit and viva voce evidence from the applicant and three defence lawyers involved in the case, assessing whether counsel overrode the applicant’s decision or exerted improper pressure.

The court found the applicant’s testimony not credible and accepted the evidence of counsel that the decision not to testify was the applicant’s informed and voluntary choice after receiving strong but legitimate legal advice.

The court held that the legal representation fell well within the range of competent counsel and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The offender was found guilty of possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession without a license after fleeing a crowded club where shots were fired.

The court considered the serious risk to the public, the offender's prior criminal record, and the breach of a prohibition order as aggravating factors, balanced against his youth and rehabilitative prospects.

A total sentence of 54 months was imposed, with credit for 27.5 months of pre-trial custody.

Criminal trial of a suspended police officer charged with multiple fraud-related offences arising from nine motor vehicle accident reports prepared without attending accident scenes.

The court found that eight of the reported accidents never occurred and that the remaining report grossly misstated the number of occupants.

Relying on circumstantial evidence, deceptive notebook entries, false ticketing practices, timing irregularities, and corroborated evidence from unsavoury witnesses, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly participated in an insurance fraud scheme and was paid to facilitate it.

Convictions were entered on all counts except four obstruction counts where the evidence did not establish that the tickets were ever issued.

The Crown applied under s. 521 of the Criminal Code to review and cancel a judicial interim release order granted after a contested bail hearing involving firearm and drug trafficking allegations.

The accused had been released on recognizance with sureties despite a reverse onus and evidence suggesting possession of a loaded handgun and cocaine at a funeral while wearing a bulletproof vest.

The review court considered the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) and the requirement to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Although the circumstances involving a firearm were serious, the court held detention was not necessary if stricter supervision conditions were imposed.

The release order was varied to require electronic monitoring and geographic restrictions between residence and employment.

The accused brought an application for the trial judge to disqualify himself based on an alleged reasonable apprehension of bias.

The accused argued that the judge's prior professional relationships with both defence counsel and Crown counsel would prevent a fair trial.

The judge rejected the application, finding that prior collegial relationships and professional disagreements, without more, do not establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The judge applied the legal test requiring substantial grounds and concluded that an informed person would not conclude the judge would decide the case unfairly.

The accused applied for an adjournment of a trial scheduled for February 26, 2013.

During a judicial pre-trial held in camera, defence counsel raised concerns about police and Crown conduct in relation to an unrelated matter involving the accused from January 2013.

The court found that the concerns about the separate matter did not provide grounds for adjournment of the current trial, which involved complaints by two civilian witnesses from an earlier date.

The court refused the adjournment application and ordered the trial to proceed as scheduled, with witnesses directed not to attend before 11:00 a.m. to accommodate counsel's scheduling conflict.

The appellant was arrested for possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and his truck was seized as offence-related property.

The assignee of the conditional sales contract for the truck, Ally Credit Canada Limited, applied for its return under s. 490 of the Criminal Code.

On the application date, the appellant's counsel's assistant requested an adjournment, which the application judge refused, ordering the truck returned to Ally.

The appellant appealed the order.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the application judge did not err in refusing the adjournment and that Ally had established it was entitled to possession of the truck due to the appellant's breach of the contract.

This is a decision on committal to trial following a lengthy preliminary inquiry into Project Corral, an investigation by the Integrated Guns and Gangs Task Force into alleged criminal organizations in northwest Toronto.

The Crown sought committal on 71 charges arising from evidence heard at the preliminary inquiry, including charges of trafficking in cocaine, marijuana, firearms and ammunition, conspiracy, counselling, obstruction of justice, and criminal organization offences.

The court analyzed voice identification evidence from intercepted communications, the meaning of coded language used by the accused, and the elements of possession, trafficking, conspiracy, and criminal organization offences.

The court ordered most accused to stand trial on the majority of charges, with some discharges on specific counts.

The appellant appealed her convictions on three charges of fraud, seeking to withdraw her guilty pleas.

She argued that she had a potential defence of duress.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the transcripts of the guilty pleas offered no support for withdrawal and that her alleged duress did not meet the requirements of section 17 of the Criminal Code.

The accused were charged with conspiracy to murder and commit aggravated assault, counselling to murder and commit aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon.

The charges arose from an overheard conversation where Abou Al-Rashta instructed Pirouzi to attack two individuals.

The court found insufficient evidence of a meeting of minds to support the conspiracy charges against both accused.

However, the court found Abou Al-Rashta guilty of counselling the offences, as he actively induced and encouraged Pirouzi.

Pirouzi was also found guilty of assault with a weapon for a separate incident involving a remote control.