Tobias Okada-Phillips

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including robbery, dangerous driving, and firearms offences, arising from two violent carjackings.

The offender, who had a significant youth and adult criminal record for similar offences, used a firearm and gratuitous violence during the carjackings.

The court considered the aggravating factors, including the offender's record and the violence used, and mitigating factors, including the guilty plea, the offender's youth, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

A global sentence of 7 years was imposed, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The applicant, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The police arrested the applicant after a foot pursuit following a 911 call about a person with a gun matching his description.

The court found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, or 9, concluding the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for possession of a firearm and that the use of force was justified.

The court found breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) due to a delay in informing the applicant of the reasons for his arrest for a firearm and failing to hold off questioning before facilitating his right to counsel.

However, applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and dismissed the application.

K.W. was found guilty of two counts of invitation to sexual touching and two counts of sexual interference against his girlfriend's sister, B.B., over a four-year period starting when B.B. was eleven.

The Crown requested an 8.5-year global custodial term, while the Defence sought 4 years.

The court found the Crown's proposed term disproportionate and the Defence's term insufficient.

Considering aggravating factors such as abuse of trust, predatory behavior, and victim impact, balanced against mitigating factors like employment, family support, and background hardships, the court imposed a global custodial sentence of 5 years, with all counts served concurrently.

Ancillary orders were also issued with a variation for K.W.'s own children.

This ruling addresses a Section 8 Charter application brought by Daylo Robinson and Dalton Wilson to exclude a firearm and illicit drugs seized during the execution of a search warrant at Mr. Wilson's residence.

The applicants argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant lacked reasonable grounds to believe a firearm would be found or that evidence of procuring and obstruction of justice would be present in electronic devices.

The court reviewed the ITO holistically, considering multiple police reports and the affiant's expert opinion, and found that there were sufficient credible and reliable grounds to support the issuance of the search warrant.

The application to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

Daylo Robinson and Dalton Wilson brought an application to exclude evidence found during a search warrant execution, arguing the information to obtain (ITO) did not establish reasonable grounds.

The Crown challenged Daylo Robinson's standing to assert a Section 8 Charter right, contending he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy as an unlawful occupant of the searched apartment.

The court applied the Edwards and El-Azrak tests, finding that while Robinson had a subjective expectation of privacy and some historical use, his illegitimate occupancy as an uninvited visitor, coupled with the Crown's theory of exploitation and intimidation, undermined any objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.

Consequently, the court ruled that Robinson lacked standing to challenge the search.

This mid-trial ruling addresses the appropriate timing for directed verdict applications in joint criminal trials, particularly when rulings may differ between co-accused.

The accused, Marsha Gonzales and Marshall Gonzales, brought directed verdict applications at the close of the Crown's case.

The court ruled that such applications should be determined and rendered at the close of the Crown's case, before the accused elects whether to call evidence.

The court dismissed Marsha Gonzales's application but granted Marshall Gonzales's application, dismissing the case against him.

The decision emphasizes that the risk of inconsistent verdicts is outweighed by the accused's right to a fair trial and full answer and defence.

This is a sentencing judgment for Kemar Clarke, who was found guilty of criminal harassment and failing to comply with a probation order.

The victim, a 17-year-old girl, was harassed and followed into her school.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, the sexual nature of the harassment, and the offence occurring on school property.

The court also considered the offender's severe mental health issues and history of non-compliance with treatment.

Despite the Crown's request for a nine-month jail sentence, the court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, noting that the offender had already served the equivalent of an 18-month jail sentence with pre-sentence custody credit.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were also issued.

Kemar Clarke was charged with criminal harassment by repeatedly following the complainant, M.R., and breaching a probation order.

The court found M.R.'s testimony credible and reliable despite some discrepancies in eyewitness identification.

The court determined that the defendant's conduct constituted "repeatedly following" for criminal harassment purposes and that the defendant knew he was harassing the complainant.

Furthermore, the court found the defendant was the same person named in the prior probation order, and the presumption of judicial regularity applied regarding his knowledge of the probation terms, despite the order not being signed.

The defendant was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant, a Black man, was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over for a traffic stop.

The police officer claimed to see cannabis crumbs on the driver's hand and detained both occupants under the Cannabis Control Act, subsequently finding a handgun on the applicant.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude the evidence, alleging violations of his Charter rights, including arbitrary detention and unreasonable search motivated by unconscious racial bias.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the applicant's rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter were violated, concluding that the officer lacked sufficient grounds for the search and that the stop and search were tainted by unconscious racial bias.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired operation of a motor vehicle by a drug.

Following a single-vehicle accident, the appellant was taken to the hospital where police delayed informing him of his arrest and right to counsel.

During this delay, hospital staff drew a blood sample for medical purposes, which police later seized via a warrant.

The trial judge found breaches of the appellant's ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) Charter rights but admitted the blood sample, finding it was not causally connected to the breaches.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by reversing the burden of persuasion regarding whether the appellant would have consented to the blood draw had his rights been respected.

The Court conducted a s. 24(2) analysis, excluded the blood sample evidence, and entered an acquittal.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation.

The police officer smelled freshly burnt marijuana and the accused admitted to smoking earlier.

The officer searched the vehicle under the Cannabis Control Act and found drugs.

The accused brought an application to exclude the evidence, arguing breaches of his s. 8 and s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found the officer lacked reasonable grounds to search the vehicle, violating s. 8, and that an unexplained 17-minute delay in providing rights to counsel violated s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), finding the Charter-infringing conduct serious and the impact on the accused's rights significant.

The offender was convicted of possessing a prohibited firearm and a high-capacity magazine.

The firearm was used by a companion in a dangerous public shooting, though the offender was acquitted of attempted murder.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the offender's background, and the impact of systemic racism on his moral blameworthiness.

A global sentence of 5 years was imposed, reduced to 2 years and 4 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and lockdown credits.

The accused was charged with attempted murder and firearms offences following a drive-by shooting.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the firearm used and the getaway vehicle.

The court found that while the accused was involved as the driver of the vehicle, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he had the requisite mens rea for party liability to attempted murder, as there was insufficient evidence he knew the shooter intended to kill the victim.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder but convicted of the firearms offences.

The defendant, charged with multiple massage parlour robberies, applied to exclude evidence seized from his rented truck and room, alleging violations of his Charter rights.

The court found that while the initial search of the truck incident to arrest was lawful, the police seriously violated the defendant's s. 10(b) rights by delaying access to counsel and improperly questioning him about his address.

This unconstitutionally obtained information led to a warrantless entry into his room, violating s. 8, and the subsequent seizure of a distinctive leather jacket.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the jacket and evidence obtained from a later warrant search of the truck, but admitted the knife and phones found during the initial lawful search.

During a trial for a home invasion and robbery, the accused applied to exclude photo lineup evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused's photo was included in the lineups based on information obtained from an unlawful search of his cellphone by police in an unrelated investigation.

The court applied the Grant framework and found that while the police misconduct was moderately serious, the evidence would have been discovered lawfully by another investigator.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would better serve the truth-seeking function of the trial and dismissed the application.

The accused were charged with armed robbery, conspiracy, and related offences following a home invasion.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an unsavoury witness who admitted to participating in the robbery and other crimes.

The court applied the Vetrovec warning, requiring corroboration for the witness's evidence.

Finding significant inconsistencies in the identification evidence and a lack of corroborating physical or circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Both accused were found not guilty.

The accused was charged with attempted murder, robbery, and aggravated assault following an altercation where he stabbed the complainant in the neck and back.

The accused claimed he acted in self-defence after the complainant pulled out a firearm and shot at him.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with both the accused's and the complainant's testimony.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to kill or rob the complainant, and failed to disprove that the accused acted in self-defence.

The accused was acquitted of all three charges.

The applicants, Jahmyle Johnson and Kyle Bancroft, sought to exclude evidence obtained from Johnson's cellphone through two police searches, arguing violations of their s. 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the initial search by Officer Down, conducted under a CDSA warrant, unlawfully extended to browser history unrelated to the drug investigation, and his testimony regarding inadvertent discovery was not credible.

The subsequent search by Officer Fahey, based on the unlawfully obtained information and flawed legal advice, was also deemed unlawful.

Applying the R. v. Grant test, the court concluded that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct, including police misconduct and reckless legal advice, outweighed society's interest in admitting the reliable evidence, as its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The application to exclude the evidence was granted.

During a trial for assault and assault with a weapon, the Crown moved to amend the indictment to substitute 'a female person' for the named victim, as the Crown's lay witnesses could not identify the victim by name and police hearsay evidence was excluded.

The court initially granted the motion, finding no prejudice to the accused's ability to meet the case.

However, after the accused and the named victim testified for the defence, firmly establishing her identity, the court reversed its ruling to avoid confusing the jury.

Jerome Green sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for firearm and fentanyl trafficking charges.

The application considered the length of pretrial detention, the availability of electronic monitoring, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as material changes in circumstances.

The court found that the extended pretrial custody, coupled with the heightened risk of COVID-19 in correctional facilities, significantly altered the bail analysis.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations and previous breaches of court orders, the court concluded that a reasonable member of the public would not have concerns about the administration of justice if Green were released under a robust supervision plan including GPS monitoring.

Bail was granted with specific conditions.