Talman Rodocker

The accused was charged with sexual assault and breach of recognizance.

He pleaded guilty to the breach but not guilty to the sexual assault.

The trial centered on whether the complainant consented to sexual intercourse in the back of a vehicle.

Both the complainant and the accused testified, presenting conflicting narratives.

Applying the W.(D) framework, the court found significant credibility and reliability issues with both witnesses, including inconsistencies in the accused's testimony and a potential motive to fabricate by the complainant.

Ultimately, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of sexual assault.

Three offenders pleaded guilty to multiple firearms offences, including aggravated assault and reckless discharge of a firearm, following a planned shooting at a taxicab that wounded one passenger.

One offender also pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The court considered the serious aggravating factors of the public shooting alongside mitigating factors, including guilty pleas, youth, and exceptionally harsh pre-sentence custody conditions exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Global sentences of 6 years were imposed for two offenders and 7.5 years for the third, before applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused applied to revisit a pre-trial ruling that admitted expert police evidence regarding street gangs.

The defence argued that their willingness to make factual admissions about gang membership and the existence of the gang constituted a material change in circumstances, rendering the expert evidence unnecessary and overly prejudicial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the proposed factual admissions lacked the necessary context that the expert evidence was meant to provide to the jury.

Furthermore, the Crown did not agree to the admissions, and the court could not compel such an agreement.

The defendants were convicted of multiple counts of robbery, use of an imitation firearm, and wearing a disguise, arising from a series of ATM robberies.

The defendants brought a Charter challenge arguing that the mandatory consecutive minimum sentences under s. 85(4) of the Criminal Code violated s. 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding it was bound by appellate authority and that the sentences were not grossly disproportionate for the offenders or a reasonable hypothetical offender.

The court also rejected a request to artificially allocate the sentences to avoid collateral immigration consequences for one of the defendants.

Both defendants were sentenced to a global term of 7 years' imprisonment, less pre-sentence custody credit.

The defendants were charged with multiple counts of robbery, attempted robbery, conspiracy, and weapons offences related to a series of ATM robberies in Toronto.

The Crown relied on similar fact evidence, including distinctive clothing worn by the perpetrators, to link the defendants to the earlier robberies after they were arrested during an attempted ATM robbery.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess the defendants' testimony and the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence.

The court rejected the defendants' explanations, found the circumstantial evidence of identity compelling, and convicted both defendants on all remaining counts.

During a trial for multiple ATM robberies, the Crown brought an application to admit evidence of each robbery as similar fact evidence on all counts to prove identity.

The Crown argued that the perpetrators shared a specific modus operandi and wore distinctive clothing, including a bleach-stained hoodie and specific combinations of other garments.

The court applied the Handy and Arp frameworks, finding that the cumulative similarities in the manner of the robberies and the unique clothing worn by the perpetrators established a high degree of similarity.

The court concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect and granted the application.

Three offenders were convicted by a jury of kidnapping, extortion, and related offences committed with a firearm for the benefit of a street gang.

The victim, a fellow gang member, was kidnapped and threatened over a stolen gun.

The court sentenced the lead offender to 11 years, the secondary offender with a lengthy record to 9 years, and the third offender with better rehabilitation prospects to 6 years, all subject to half-time parole eligibility and credit for pre-sentence custody including lockdown time.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police found a loaded handgun in a gym bag at a construction site where he was working.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused had knowledge and control of the bag.

The court found the evidence fell short of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in possession of the bag, as it lacked distinctive markings when observed by police, was stored in an open area accessible to others, and contained no identifying evidence.

The accused was found not guilty on all charges.

During a sentencing hearing for fraud convictions arising from advance-fee or “grandparent” scams targeting elderly victims, the Crown sought to introduce evidence from 21 additional alleged victims.

The Crown relied on s. 725(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, arguing the additional frauds formed part of the circumstances of the offences.

The court reviewed the jurisprudence governing when uncharged conduct may be considered at sentencing, including the requirements of temporal proximity and connection demonstrating a system or pattern of conduct.

The court held that the proposed evidence would effectively allow the Crown to split its case by presenting additional complainants who could have testified at trial.

The application was dismissed, though the court left open the possibility of limited interpretive evidence from a police investigator regarding seized notebooks.

In a first-degree murder trial involving alleged street gang members, the Crown sought to clarify and maintain the admissibility of certain evidence following a pre-trial ruling.

The court reconsidered the admissibility of a YouTube video after correcting a factual misapprehension about its contents, ruling it remained highly probative of gang affiliation and motive.

The court also permitted the Crown to adduce a composite audio recording for voice identification, provided no visual component was shown.

Finally, the court held that numerous handwritten documents and rap lyrics seized from the respondents' apartment were admissible without further redaction, as their probative value regarding gang membership and animus toward rival gangs significantly outweighed their prejudicial effect as bad character evidence.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of two statements made to police and sought the exclusion of derivative evidence (cell phone records and a witness) under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the first statement involuntary due to the Crown's failure to account for a significant period of the accused's custody, but ruled the second statement voluntary.

The court also found breaches of the accused's s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter rights during his initial investigative detention.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the derivative evidence, finding the breaches were not serious, the impact on the accused's rights was minimal, and the evidence would have been inevitably discovered.

In a pre-trial voir dire in a murder prosecution, the Crown sought to prove the voluntariness of an utterance allegedly made by the accused to police during a brief encounter in an apartment building.

The defence argued the statement should be excluded on the basis that it was not proven to have been made by the accused and that it was obtained during an arbitrary detention contrary to s. 9 of the Charter, seeking exclusion under s. 24(2).

The court held that the statement was voluntary and that circumstantial evidence, including self-identification, physical description, and a distinctive tattoo, established on a balance of probabilities that the speaker was the accused.

Applying the framework from Grant, the court further concluded that the encounter did not constitute a detention, as it was brief, non-coercive, and part of general police patrol activity.

The accused’s application to exclude the statement was dismissed and the Crown’s application was granted.

The accused applied for an order requiring YouTube to remove approximately 75 videos associated with a street gang until the completion of a murder trial, arguing that jurors might view the material online despite judicial instructions and thereby jeopardize the fairness of the trial.

The court refused leave to bring the application due to failure to comply with the Criminal Proceedings Rules for the Superior Court of Justice, including the absence of proper notice and evidentiary foundation.

The court further held that the application had no reasonable prospect of success because it relied on an incorrect statutory provision, lacked evidence of a real and substantial risk to trial fairness, failed to consider alternative measures, and sought an order affecting third‑party Charter expression rights without notice.

The judge also raised concerns about territorial jurisdiction given that YouTube operated outside Canada.

Leave was denied and the application summarily dismissed.

The Crown applied to call a police detective as an expert witness on street gangs in a first-degree murder trial.

The accused opposed the application, arguing the expert was biased and the proposed evidence, including rap videos, letters, and graffiti, was highly prejudicial.

The court found the expert evidence necessary and the detective qualified.

The court admitted most of the videos, letters, and graffiti, finding their probative value in establishing motive and the existence of a criminal organization outweighed their prejudicial effect, but excluded evidence of the accused's prior convictions and certain letters.

In a murder prosecution, the Crown brought a pre-trial application seeking to qualify a forensic document examiner as an expert in handwriting analysis to assist in establishing authorship of seized writings.

One accused opposed the application, arguing the proposed expert lacked sufficient qualifications and that her work had not been peer reviewed and used a different classification methodology than other forensic standards.

The court applied the test for admissibility of expert evidence from R. v. Mohan and held that the witness possessed the requisite specialized knowledge through education, training, and experience at the Centre of Forensic Sciences.

Concerns raised by the defence related to methodology and review processes went to the weight of the evidence rather than admissibility.

The witness was therefore qualified to provide opinion evidence in handwriting analysis.