Timothy Francis Edwards

The appellant appealed an Immediate Suspension Order (ISO) of its liquor licence issued by the Registrar after two employees were charged with human trafficking and sexual assault involving undocumented workers.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's owners failed to exercise sufficient control over the premises, allowed illegal employment practices, and failed to implement adequate safety measures following the incident.

The Tribunal upheld the ISO, finding it necessary to protect the public interest.

The appellant appealed an Immediate Suspension Order and a Notice of Proposal to revoke its liquor licence.

The Registrar argued that two firearm-related incidents at the licensed premises, including a shooting and the seizure of loaded firearms, demonstrated that the appellant's sole shareholder would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to implement effective security measures despite the incidents and prior warnings.

The Tribunal concluded that the past and present conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be operated safely, and ordered the Registrar to carry out the proposal to revoke the licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposed Order to refuse his registration as a Category 1 Gaming Assistant.

The refusal was based on the appellant's 2018 criminal conviction for invitation to sexual touching involving a minor employee under his supervision.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Registrar established reasonable grounds to believe the appellant would not act with integrity, honesty, or in the public interest, given the supervisory nature of the gaming assistant role and the lack of evidence regarding rehabilitation or reduced risk of recidivism.

The Tribunal confirmed the refusal of registration and issued a non-publication order anonymizing the appellant's name to protect the identities of the victims from the criminal proceeding.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter for a fatal stabbing that occurred during a brief physical altercation.

The Crown sought a 4-year penitentiary term, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the accused carrying and quickly using a large knife, and the profound impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the accused's youth, lack of prior record, remorse, cooperation with police, and potential for rehabilitation.

The judge rejected a conditional sentence, finding it insufficient to reflect the gravity of the crime, and imposed a 34-month penitentiary sentence after accounting for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a firearm prohibition, and knife forfeiture were also made.

The applicant, awaiting trial for first-degree murder and firearms offences, sought bail based on changed circumstances since his initial detention order.

The court found that trial delays due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a recent outbreak at the detention centre, a strengthened release plan, and a pre-trial ruling strengthening the Crown's case constituted material changes warranting a fresh analysis.

However, after weighing the secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, including the applicant's repeated possession of loaded handguns and the strength of the Crown's case, the court concluded that detention remained necessary and dismissed the application.

The accused, awaiting trial for first degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion to challenge prospective jurors for cause based on pre-trial publicity and racial bias.

The Crown consented to the challenge but disputed the form of the questions regarding race.

The accused called expert evidence to propose new, multi-part questions to uncover racial bias.

The court rejected three purely attitudinal questions but permitted a modified version of the fourth question that incorporated the behavioural component of partiality required by law.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to admit two bodies of evidence in a first-degree murder trial.

The evidence related to the accused's alleged prior possession of two handguns used in the homicide.

The first body of evidence consisted of cell phone photographs showing the accused with a revolver similar to one of the murder weapons.

The second body of evidence involved the accused's presence at a prior shooting where the second murder weapon was discharged.

The court ruled both bodies of evidence admissible, finding that their probative value in establishing the accused's identity and access to the murder weapons outweighed their prejudicial effect as prior discreditable conduct, subject to potential editing and admissions to limit prejudice.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown alleged that the accused collided with a vehicle stopped at a red light and then attempted to distance himself from the collision.

The defence challenged the officer's reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the officer's consideration of the three-hour requirement under the Criminal Code, the identification of the driver, and whether the evidence met the Stellato standard for impairment.

The court found that the accused was the driver, that the officer properly considered the time element, that identification was established beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the evidence demonstrated at least slight impairment of driving ability.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with possession, accessing, and distribution of child pornography.

The defence brought a renewed section 11(b) Charter application to stay proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The Crown disclosed a critical 25-page expert technical crime report only 20 months after arrest and less than two months before trial, necessitating an adjournment.

The court found the Crown substantially responsible for the delay, which exceeded the Jordan guideline threshold, and granted the stay of proceedings.

The applicant, Valeri Gueorguiev, challenged search warrants executed on his property, alleging that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained errors and misleading information, thereby violating his rights under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The Crown conceded some errors in the ITO but argued that, even with corrections, sufficient reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrants.

The court found that the corrected ITO provided adequate grounds for the warrants and that the police errors were not intentional or reckless.

Consequently, the application to quash the warrants and exclude evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible.

The accused were convicted of discharging a firearm into a residential home and mischief under $5000.

The court imposed sentences of 5 years imprisonment on each accused, with credit for presentence custody.

The offence involved firing multiple bullets into a home in the early morning hours, with one bullet narrowly missing a sleeping child.

The court found the shooting was planned and deliberate, targeting the home of a family member of a drug dealer.

Weapons prohibition orders for 10 years and DNA orders were imposed.

The accused was charged with attempting to obstruct justice after removing her friend's pool cues from a bar following a fatal stabbing.

The Crown argued the cues could have been used for identification, while the defence argued the accused merely retrieved her friend's property without intent to impede the investigation.

The court found that the perpetrator was well-known to patrons and staff, making the cues unnecessary for identification.

The court concluded that a specific intent to obstruct justice could not be inferred from the circumstantial evidence, and the accused was found not guilty.

The accused were charged with discharging a firearm and mischief under $500 for firing a rifle into a residential home, narrowly missing an occupant.

The Crown alleged that Mohammed was the shooter and Rodney was the driver.

The Crown's case relied on direct and circumstantial identification evidence, which standing alone was insufficient to meet the requisite standard of proof.

The Crown also called a jailhouse informant to buttress the identification evidence.

The court found that while the informant was an unsavoury character with a lengthy criminal record, certain elements of his testimony were corroborated by evidence not available to the public, thereby enhancing his reliability.

The court concluded that the combination of identification evidence and the informant's testimony satisfied the Crown's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a voir dire ruling on the voluntariness of statements made by the accused, Anthony Alas, who was charged with second-degree murder.

The primary issue was whether the statements were the product of an atmosphere of oppression, specifically due to the police's alleged failure to provide the accused with stomach medication.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, concluding that the accused's will was not overborne by police conduct or the circumstances.

The court considered the accused's mental state, the absence of threats or inducements (including any suggestion regarding his partner's potential arrest), and the presence of oppressive circumstances.

Despite some concerns about how the accused's medical needs were handled, the court determined that the overall police conduct was polite and accommodating, and the interview was calm and non-confrontational.

The defendant, CH, was charged with sexual assault, breach of a probation order, assault, and attempted sexual assault, stemming from two incidents involving his partner.

The court, applying the principles from R v W(D) regarding credibility in criminal trials, found reasonable doubt concerning the earlier sexual assault and the attempted sexual assault on May 16, 2015, due to conflicting and muddled evidence.

However, the court found the complainant's account of the physical assault on May 16, 2015, to be precise and clear, leading to a conviction for assault and the consequential breach of probation.

The accused was charged with possession of a prohibited weapon without authorization, two counts of possession of a prohibited weapon, careless storage of a firearm, careless storage of ammunition, possession of a firearm obtained by an indictable offence, and possession of a firearm with its serial number defaced.

A .32 calibre silver revolver with three live rounds and a spent shell casing were discovered during a search warrant execution at the accused's apartment.

The accused challenged committal for trial, arguing insufficient evidence of knowledge, a material element of possession.

The court found the evidence circumstantial and sparse, with equally plausible inferences available regarding knowledge by either the accused or a third party with regular access to the apartment.

The court discharged the accused, finding the Crown failed to meet the threshold for committal.

The accused was charged with Impaired Care or Control and Care or Control Over 80 following an investigation while sitting in a parked motor vehicle.

The Crown alleged the accused exhibited indicia of impairment warranting arrest.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, arguing there were no objective reasonable and probable grounds, and sought exclusion of breath test results under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found breaches of Charter ss. 8 and 9 rights but admitted the evidence under s. 24(2) analysis.

The court convicted on the Care or Control Over 80 charge but acquitted on the Impaired Care or Control charge.

Sentencing following a guilty plea to breaking and entering a dwelling house and committing theft.

The offender had an extensive criminal history including numerous prior break and enter convictions and was on probation at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought a five‑year penitentiary sentence while the defence sought four years with enhanced credit for pre‑sentence custody based on institutional conduct.

The court emphasized denunciation, deterrence, and protection of the public given the offender’s persistent recidivism but accepted evidence of positive institutional behaviour and program participation as circumstances justifying enhanced credit under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code.

Enhanced credit reduced the custodial sentence to twenty‑four months less one day in a provincial institution.

The applicant, charged with break and enter and other offences, sought a stay of proceedings or a reduction in sentence under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging that police used excessive force during his arrest in violation of ss. 7 and 12.

The applicant fled the scene, ran through fences and trees, and actively resisted arrest when tackled.

The court found that the police officers' use of pepper spray, distractionary strikes, and baton strikes was a proportionate, necessary, and reasonable response to the applicant's resistance and potential threat.

The application was dismissed as no Charter breach occurred.