Tobias Okada-Phillips

The applicant, Rashon Mair, sought a bail review following his detention by a Justice of the Peace.

Counsel argued for release based on material changes in circumstance: completion of a prior sentence, discharge of more serious charges from a preliminary hearing, and the COVID-19 pandemic impacting his health (asthma) and trial timeliness.

The Crown conceded a material change but maintained concerns on the secondary ground (public safety/likelihood of committing further offences), citing Mair's prior breach of recognizance and questioning the sureties' suitability.

The court acknowledged the material changes, including the relevance of COVID-19, but found the proposed release plan, involving his parents as sureties under house arrest, insufficient to address the substantial risk of Mair committing further offences or interfering with justice, given his history of violence and breach of prior bail conditions.

The application was dismissed, but leave was granted for a further application with a more robust plan.

The accused, JF, was tried on nine counts including sexual assault, unlawful confinement, choking, assault with weapon, assault causing bodily harm, assault, and robbery.

The complainant, AB, did not appear at trial, and her preliminary inquiry testimony was admitted.

The defence challenged AB's credibility regarding her relationship with JF, her pregnancy, and inconsistencies with forensic evidence.

The court found AB's testimony unreliable and inconsistent with other evidence, including JF's credible account and the lack of corroborating forensic findings.

JF was acquitted on all counts.

Howard Burke and Devon Dinall were convicted by a jury of drug-related offences (cocaine trafficking) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court determined the factual basis for sentencing, rejecting the defence's argument that marihuana trafficking was also involved.

Howard Burke, a repeat offender, was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for trafficking 2.320 kg of cocaine and concurrent three years for possession of $76,880 in proceeds.

Devon Dinall, a mid-level trafficker, was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment for conspiracy to traffic 306g of cocaine, concurrent three and a half years for trafficking, and concurrent one year for possession of $15,560 in proceeds.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, considering aggravating factors like the volume of drugs and prior records, and mitigating factors like employment and personal challenges.

The offenders were found guilty of recruiting two minors for the purpose of exploitation and advertising sexual services.

At sentencing, they challenged the constitutionality of the five-year mandatory minimum sentence under s. 279.011 of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the s. 7 overbreadth challenge but found that the mandatory minimum violated s. 12 as it was grossly disproportionate to the offenders' lower level of moral blameworthiness, and it could not be saved under s. 1.

The mandatory minimum was struck down, and the offenders were sentenced to 18 months and 11 months respectively.

The applicant sought a Rowbotham Order to conditionally stay 40 criminal charges across Ottawa, Pembroke, and Belleville until the Attorney General for Ontario funded his defence counsel, and a Peterman Order for travel/accommodation costs for his counsel.

The court applied the three-part Rowbotham test: legal aid ineligibility, indigence, and seriousness/complexity compromising fair trial.

The applicant was found indigent.

The Rowbotham application was granted for the Ottawa charges due to their seriousness and complexity (robbery with a firearm, co-accused, forensic disclosure).

However, it was dismissed for the Belleville charges because the applicant had not exhausted legal aid appeals and the trial was far off, allowing time for re-application and potential change in financial status.

The application was also dismissed for the Pembroke charges, as despite indigence and effective legal aid denial, the 30 charges (mostly fraud, theft) were deemed fact-based and not legally complex enough to materially compromise a fair trial without state-funded counsel.

The appellant, Warren Tremblay, appealed his convictions for assault causing bodily harm and breach of probation, as well as the imposed sentence.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge erred in failing to consider the element of intentional application of force for the assault charge, and misapprehended significant evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice.

The court also found errors in the reliance on a 9-1-1 recording as compelling evidence and the finding of corroboration.

Consequently, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on 14 counts of failing to file corporate tax returns under s. 238(1) of the Income Tax Act.

The trial judge had acquitted the respondent based on the defence of due diligence.

On appeal, the Crown sought to introduce fresh evidence showing that the respondent had still not filed the returns months after the trial, contradicting his trial testimony.

The Superior Court admitted the fresh evidence and found the trial judge erred by failing to consider the respondent's prior knowledge of his obligations and the continuing nature of the duty to file.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered on the issue of due diligence.

The accused challenged the mandatory victim surcharge under Criminal Code section 737 as violating equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the surcharge had a disproportionate impact on persons with mental disabilities.

The Crown sought to justify the violation under section 1 of the Charter by arguing the surcharge served pressing and substantial objectives of raising funds for victim services and holding offenders accountable.

The court rejected the Crown's section 1 justification, finding the legislation was not minimally impairing and that the deleterious effects on disabled persons outweighed the salutary effects.

The accused pleaded guilty to threatening to cause death and breach of probation.

She brought constitutional challenges to section 737 of the Criminal Code (the victim surcharge provision), arguing it violated her Charter rights under sections 7 and 15.

The court found a prima facie violation of section 15 (equality rights) on the basis that the mandatory victim surcharge has a discriminatory impact on mentally disabled persons who are disproportionately poor.

The court rejected section 7 challenges based on arbitrariness and overbreadth, finding the provision does not violate liberty or security of the person in a manner contrary to fundamental justice.