Thomas A. Bielby

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police found a loaded handgun wrapped in a t-shirt in his family's garage.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance showing the accused and an associate in the garage, and photographs of the associate with a handgun.

The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the handgun and that multiple people had access to the unlocked garage.

The court found the accused's evidence unpersuasive but concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the firearm.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicant husband and respondent wife separated shortly after immigrating to Canada from Pakistan.

The applicant returned to Pakistan for two years before coming back to Canada.

Following a trial, the court granted a divorce and awarded sole custody of the three children to the respondent, with fixed access for the applicant.

The court found the applicant attempted to mislead the court regarding his income and foreign assets.

The court imputed an income of $31,600 to the applicant for child support purposes and dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support.

For equalization, the court included the applicant's foreign real estate and jewelry, ordering the applicant to pay an equalization payment of $211,220.17.

The moving party sought to vary longstanding child and spousal support obligations arising from a 1999 family support order, alleging inability to pay due to reduced income and deteriorating health.

The responding parties and the bankruptcy trustee also pursued relief alleging fraudulent conveyances of real property intended to defeat support and tax creditors.

The court found extensive credibility problems and repeated contradictions in the moving party’s affidavits and testimony, but nevertheless accepted that support should be varied in part based on the child’s age, schooling status, the recipient’s remarriage, and some later evidence of health deterioration.

The court terminated spousal support effective December 31, 2002, varied child support for later periods, and terminated child support on June 30, 2013.

The fraudulent conveyance claim was dismissed because, although the initial transfer bore badges of fraud, the later transfer to the brother and his co-purchaser was for valuable consideration, in good faith, and without the requisite knowledge.

The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought applications to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by invalid search warrants and an unauthorized cell phone search.

The court found the search warrant for one applicant's residence was valid, but the warrant for the other applicant's residence was invalid due to insufficient corroboration of a confidential informant's tip.

However, the court admitted the handgun found at the second residence under s. 24(2).

Regarding the first applicant's cell phone, the court found the police searched it without informed consent, violating his s. 8 rights, and excluded the cell phone contents under s. 24(2).

The applicant, an innocent bystander injured during a police shooting, sought an order of mandamus to compel the Director of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) to conduct a proper investigation and lay charges against the officers.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction, arguing the matter should be heard by the Divisional Court.

The Superior Court of Justice held that because the SIU is a creation of a provincial statute (the Police Services Act), the application must proceed by way of judicial review before the Divisional Court under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The application was dismissed without prejudice.

The accused, Vincent Ham, faced charges of possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime exceeding $5,000.

He brought an application to exclude all evidence, arguing violations of his sections 7, 8, and 9 Charter rights due to an alleged lack of reasonable and probable grounds for his arrest.

The court determined that the relevant time for assessing reasonable and probable grounds was at the time of arrest, not when the decision to arrest was initially made.

Based on extensive police surveillance (Project Union) of a suspected drug stash house and Hoang's activities, including two observed drug-related transactions on the day of the arrest, the court found that the police had both subjective and objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused.

Consequently, the application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the accused was found guilty on both counts.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add a corporate plaintiff, Northeast Engineering & Development Ltd., and new causes of action for intentional interference with economic relations and breach of fiduciary duty.

The defendants opposed, arguing prejudice, abuse of process, and that the proposed claims were untenable.

The court granted leave, finding the proposed claims raised triable issues, the amendments complied with pleading rules, and the addition of the corporate plaintiff did not constitute undue prejudice or abuse of process, especially given the claims arose from the same facts and could have been brought in a separate action.

The Appellant, Jeff McClennan, appealed his convictions for Impaired Driving and Over Eighty Care and Control.

The appeal was based on the trial judge's alleged palpable and overriding errors in findings of fact and credibility regarding the "realistic risk of danger" element of care and control.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge made significant factual errors by misstating evidence and taking the Appellant's testimony out of context, which directly impacted the determination of realistic risk.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction overturned, and a re-trial ordered.

The accused, Jarnail Singh, faced six criminal charges including obstruction of a peace officer, dangerous driving, assault with a weapon, assault to resist arrest, and two counts of possession of controlled substances.

The accused conceded guilt on the drug possession charges.

The court also heard a Charter application alleging arrest without reasonable grounds and excessive force.

The court found that while initial grounds for arrest were lacking, reasonable grounds existed at the time of actual arrest, thus no Charter breach regarding the arrest itself.

However, the court found excessive force was used post-shooting, but not the shooting itself.

The application for a stay of proceedings was denied, with the court noting that police conduct would be considered at sentencing.

The accused was acquitted on the charges of obstruction, assault with a weapon, assault to resist arrest, and dangerous driving, primarily due to a reasonable doubt as to whether he knew the plainclothes officers were police and a mistake of fact negating the mens rea for dangerous driving.

The applicant brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from an affidavit filed by the respondent in an underlying application for unpaid wages.

The impugned paragraphs alleged that the applicant was terminated for cause due to sexual harassment and insubordination.

The court found that because the underlying application sought only unpaid wages earned prior to termination and not damages for wrongful dismissal, the allegations regarding cause for termination were clearly irrelevant and scandalous.

The court granted the motion and struck the paragraphs pursuant to Rules 25.11, 38.12, and 39.01(5) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant, charged with importing cocaine after a secondary inspection at the airport, brought an application for third party records seeking CBSA training materials on racial profiling.

She alleged that her referral to secondary inspection was based on racial profiling because she is Black and was travelling from Jamaica.

The court applied the O'Connor test and found that the applicant failed to establish that the requested records were likely to be relevant.

The court held that there was no direct or circumstantial evidence of racial profiling, as travelling from a drug source country was only one of several objective indicators used by the CBSA officer.

The application was dismissed.

The offender, D.W., was found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, sexual touching, and invitation to sexual touching involving a seven-year-old victim.

The sexual assault conviction was stayed under the Kienapple Principle.

The court considered aggravating factors such as breach of trust and the victim's vulnerability, and mitigating factors including harsh pre-trial custody conditions and the certainty of deportation.

The court declined to grant credit for time spent in immigration detention as it was not directly a result of the charges.

A global sentence of 4.5 years imprisonment was imposed, with a 1.5:1 credit for 21 days of pre-bail custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample, lifetime sexual offender registry, lifetime weapons prohibition, and a lifetime no-contact order with the victim and her family.

The offender, Narankar Dhillon, was convicted of trafficking 101 grams of heroin.

At the sentencing hearing, the court considered the severe impact of heroin trafficking, the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, his age (53), and 1200 days of pre-trial custody, including 309 days in lockdown.

The Crown sought an eight-year global sentence, while the defence proposed six years.

The court determined a global range of six to nine years for less than half a kilogram of heroin.

After applying a 1.5:1 credit for pre-trial custody (1800 days) and an enhanced credit of 90 days for lockdown conditions, the offender was sentenced to a global term of seven years imprisonment, resulting in a further one year and ten months in custody.

Ancillary orders for a DNA sample, forfeiture, and a ten-year weapons prohibition were also issued.

The offender pleaded guilty to importing 758 grams of cocaine into Canada after being caught at Pearson International Airport.

The Crown sought a sentence of 2.5 years, while the defence sought 2 years.

The court considered the offender's remorse, guilty plea, and lack of a related criminal record as mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to two years in jail, along with a DNA order and a weapons prohibition.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, errors in credibility findings, and a violation of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that trial counsel made a reasonable tactical decision not to introduce medical evidence.

The court also held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors in assessing credibility, and confirmed that there is no right to counsel prior to complying with a forthwith roadside screening demand.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding.

The respondent sought a stay of support enforcement, a refraining order against the suspension of his driver's licence, and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The applicant sought to strike the respondent's pleadings and a finding of contempt for his ongoing failure to comply with financial disclosure orders.

The court dismissed the respondent's motions for a stay and exclusive possession, finding he lacked clean hands and failed to establish a prima facie case for variation.

A refraining order was granted on the condition that the respondent pay current support and $1,000 monthly towards arrears.

The court declined to strike the respondent's pleadings to allow him to participate at trial, but found him in civil contempt for wilful non-disclosure, granting him a final opportunity to purge the contempt before sentencing.

The offender was convicted of possessing 486 grams of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after accepting a controlled delivery package.

The offender acted as a low-level conduit or 'mule' for financial gain while also participating in fraudulent schemes.

The court weighed the highly addictive nature of heroin and the profit motive as aggravating factors against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record.

A global sentence of four years was imposed, reduced to 22 months of further custody after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The respondent in a high-conflict family law proceeding brought a motion seeking the sale of the matrimonial home, carriage of the sale, exclusive possession, and financial disclosure.

The applicant sought an adjournment, which the court denied.

The court declined to order the immediate sale of the home or vary the existing exclusive possession order so close to trial, provided the applicant complies with a proposal to pay $20,000 monthly towards outstanding costs and $12,350 monthly for support and arrears.

The court also ordered the applicant to comply with outstanding financial disclosure requests.

The offender, a habitual criminal with 62 prior convictions, drove a stolen truck through a red light while evading police, striking and killing another driver before fleeing the scene.

He was convicted of criminal negligence causing death, failing to remain, possession of stolen property, and driving while disqualified.

The court considered his Aboriginal heritage as a mitigating factor under the Gladue framework but emphasized the paramount need for denunciation and protection of the public.

A global sentence of 15 years' incarceration was imposed, along with a lifetime driving prohibition and delayed parole eligibility.

The accused was charged with trafficking in a controlled substance after police observed him handing a coffee cup to another individual in a parking lot.

The recipient's vehicle was stopped shortly after, and police found 101 grams of heroin inside the coffee cup.

The court accepted the circumstantial evidence of the police officers, finding that the only logical inference was that the cup contained heroin when the accused delivered it.

The accused was found guilty.