Tim Wightman

Following a five-week trial, the offenders were convicted of fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document arising from a fraudulent mandatory entry-level training scheme for commercial truck drivers.

Between January 2019 and May 2021, the offenders operated unregistered truck driver schools, charged students $4,000-$5,000 for substandard training that did not meet MELT standards, and paid accomplices to fraudulently upload false MELT completion records to the MTO database.

Approximately 45-47 students per offender were defrauded.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the offenders sought a conditional sentence of 12-18 months.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with strict conditions including house arrest for the full duration, 200 hours of community service, and a forfeiture order against one offender for three commercial trucks valued at approximately $100,000.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, applied for a second court-ordered psychiatric assessment under s. 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code to support a defence of not criminally responsible.

The court dismissed the application, finding that a second assessment was not necessary because a comprehensive assessment had already been conducted by a forensic psychiatrist, and there was no evidence of new information that would shed further light on the accused's mental state at the time of the offence.

The applicants, charged with driving offences following a dirt bike collision, brought a Charter motion to exclude blood samples and medical records seized by police.

They argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to establish the affiant's subjective belief in reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found the affiant only possessed a reasonable suspicion, rendering the search warrant and production order invalid and in breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), citing the overbroad production order, careless drafting, and the issuing justice's apparent failure to properly review the materials.

The applicant, Ian Bush, sought a stay of proceedings due to an alleged breach of his right to a timely trial under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The court considered the total delay, defence delay, and exceptional circumstances, including the agreement to switch trial dates for a triple murder trial and an attempt murder trial to avoid prejudice from pre-trial publicity.

The court found the switch in trial dates constituted an exceptional circumstance and that the total delay was within the presumptive ceiling or justified by transitional exceptions.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, charged with attempted murder, robbery, forcible confinement, and weapons offences, brought pre-trial motions to sit at the counsel table and to sever the firearms charges.

The court dismissed the seating application, finding the accused posed a security risk and that his presence in the prisoner's box would not cause undue prejudice.

The court also dismissed the severance application, concluding that the evidence was not complex, the counts were factually connected, and a separate trial would cause further delay and consume additional resources.

The Crown applied to introduce similar fact evidence of three murders (the "Garon murders") committed by the accused, Ian Bush, in 2007, at his trial for the attempted murder of Ernest Côté in 2014.

The Crown sought to use this evidence to prove intent, arguing striking similarities between the acts.

The defence conceded the probative value but argued overwhelming prejudice.

The court, applying the balancing test of probative value versus prejudicial effect, denied the Crown's application, finding that the highly inflammatory nature and gravity of the triple murders would overwhelmingly prejudice the jury, outweighing the probative value, and that a limiting instruction would be ineffective.

The accused, Ian Bush, faced charges of three counts of first-degree murder.

This decision addresses several pre-trial applications: the Crown's application to admit hearsay statements and similar fact evidence, and the Defence's applications to exclude the accused's Tax Court of Canada (TCC) file and seized property.

The court granted the Crown's hearsay application, finding the statements necessary and reliable.

It dismissed the Crown's similar fact application, concluding that despite high similarity, the overwhelming prejudice from extensive media coverage of the similar act (attempted murder of a 101-year-old veteran) outweighed its probative value.

The court also dismissed the Defence's applications to exclude the TCC file and seized property, finding them relevant and admissible as evidence of motive and identity.

During a first-degree murder trial, the court issued written reasons for three oral evidentiary rulings.

First, evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct was admitted as its probative value in assessing the reliability of his confession outweighed its prejudicial effect.

Second, a spontaneous inculpatory utterance made by the accused to special constables while being transported was ruled voluntary and admissible.

Third, the defence was permitted to call a psychiatrist and psychologist as non-expert witnesses to testify about the accused's demeanour and pre-confession statements, but they were restricted from providing a diagnosis or testifying about post-confession statements.

The applicant sought release on bail pending trial on a charge of second degree murder.

The proposed release plan included strict house arrest with parental sureties, significant financial bonds, and real-time GPS monitoring.

The court considered the statutory grounds for pre-trial detention under the Criminal Code and evaluated the apparent strength of the Crown’s case, the seriousness and circumstances of the alleged offence, and the risk of interference with witnesses and the administration of justice.

The court concluded that the Crown’s case appeared reasonably strong and that the alleged conduct involved planning, serious violence, and attempts to influence a witness.

Detention was ordered on the secondary and tertiary grounds to protect the public and maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon causing bodily harm, unlawful entry, assault, and uttering threats arising from incidents in a former intimate relationship.

The Crown alleged a pattern of domestic violence culminating in an assault that caused dental injuries and threats to kill.

The defence argued the complainant fabricated the allegations to justify leaving the jurisdiction with the parties’ child and to counter family court proceedings concerning custody.

After assessing credibility under the framework from R. v. W. (D.) and considering inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence and corroborating evidence, the court found the testimony unreliable and raised reasonable doubt.

The Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused brought an application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code seeking production of counselling records from a woman’s abuse counsellor relating to the complainant’s allegations of sexual assault.

The defence argued the records were relevant to credibility and reliability and necessary to challenge alleged fabrication.

The court applied the two‑stage framework governing third‑party records under ss. 278.1–278.7 and considered whether the accused met the threshold of likely relevance.

The court found that the defence failed to demonstrate that the counselling records were likely to contain new or contradictory information beyond material already disclosed, including medical notes and police statements.

Given the high privacy interests attached to therapeutic counselling records and the absence of a demonstrated impairment to the accused’s ability to make full answer and defence, the application was dismissed at the first stage.

The accused applied under s. 276.2 of the Criminal Code for permission to adduce evidence of prior sexual activity with the complainant in a sexual assault prosecution.

The defence sought to cross-examine the complainant regarding previous consensual sexual activity involving physical force, including grabbing and slapping, and whether bruising observed on the complainant on the alleged offence date could have been caused by earlier consensual activity.

The Crown did not oppose the application if limited to the specified topics.

The court held the evidence was relevant and significantly probative to the defence theory that no sexual activity occurred on the charged date and that the bruising may have originated earlier.

The court granted the application, allowing cross‑examination limited to the three identified points to protect the accused’s right to make full answer and defence.

The accused brought a motion for a directed verdict seeking acquittals on firearm possession charges, arguing the Crown had not led evidence capable of establishing knowledge of the firearm’s presence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to a residence where a loaded 9 mm handgun and ammunition were found concealed in the master bedroom.

The court applied the directed verdict test and considered whether there was some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could convict.

The court held that multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence supported an inference that the accused knew of and had control over the firearm.

The motion for a directed verdict was therefore dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of assault, threatening death, intimidation, and criminal harassment against his wife and five children over a 24-year marriage.

The court found the accused guilty of assaulting his wife on two occasions and his eldest son on one occasion, rejecting the defence of reasonable correction under section 43 of the Criminal Code for the use of a toy bat.

The accused was also found guilty of criminally harassing his wife and two of his younger sons due to his controlling behaviour, emotional abuse, and use of a leather belt for discipline.

The accused was acquitted of the remaining charges, including threatening death and intimidation, due to reasonable doubt regarding his intent and lawful authority.