Tom Lemon

The appellant appealed his convictions on three counts under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and sought leave to appeal his sentence.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to self-instruct on Vetrovec in relation to the co-accused's testimony and that the trial judge unevenly scrutinized the evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting ample independent corroborative evidence supported the co-accused's testimony.

On sentence, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to perform a proper Gladue analysis, but the court found no error given the Gladue Writer Program's inability to prepare a report and the trial judge's careful consideration of the appellant's circumstances.

Both the conviction appeal and sentence appeal were dismissed.

The appellant, Leonidas Economopoulos, appealed his convictions for drug offences and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing that the affidavit used to obtain a search warrant for his home and car was insufficient to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The trial judge had found the affidavit sufficient, despite noted deficiencies, to conclude there were reasonable and probable grounds.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, deferring to his review and agreeing that the affidavit met the legal test for ex parte authorizations, as articulated in R. v. Araujo.

The Court also rejected the argument that the trial judge improperly used cross-examination evidence to amplify the grounds for identification.

The appeal was dismissed.

M.S., a young person, pleaded guilty to multiple terrorism-related offenses, including facilitating terrorist activity, counselling to detonate an explosive device, and making/possessing explosive substances.

The Crown initially sought an adult sentence of life imprisonment but, after extensive evidence regarding M.S.'s rehabilitation efforts, including participation in Project Reset and NORMM programs, and his diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis, jointly submitted for a maximum youth sentence.

The court accepted the joint submission, imposing a three-year custody and supervision order (two years in custody, one year under community supervision), in addition to the three years already served in detention, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and public protection under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittals for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

At trial, a key Crown witness recanted her videorecorded police statement in which she described witnessing the respondent sell cocaine.

The trial judge permitted the Crown to cross-examine the witness under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act but dismissed the Crown's application to admit the statement for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made multiple errors in his hearsay analysis, including improperly assessing necessity based on the overall strength of the Crown's case, failing to recognize the witness's availability for cross-examination as a procedural safeguard, and improperly exercising his residual discretion.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed her conviction for the importation of cocaine, challenging the voluntariness of a video statement given to an RCMP officer.

She argued the statement was made under oppressive circumstances and in exchange for an improper inducement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's determination that the statement was voluntary.

The court upheld the trial judge's assessment of the officers' evidence, concluding there was no evidence of oppressive conditions or improper promises that would vitiate voluntariness.

Following conviction on charges of Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer, the defendant, a former Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, was sentenced to four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with 100 hours of community service.

The defendant had directed the wiping of computer hard drives in the Office of the Premier to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and anticipated legislative committee production orders regarding the gas plant controversy.

The court found the offence struck at the heart of democratic accountability and transparency, warranting incarceration despite the defendant's otherwise exemplary character and community contributions.

David Livingston, Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, and Laura Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications and Strategy, were charged with Breach of Trust by a Public Official, Commit Mischief to Data, and Unauthorized Use of a Computer.

The Crown abandoned the Breach of Trust charge.

The defendants were accused of directing the wiping of twenty computers in the Office of the Premier during the transition from Premier McGuinty to Premier Wynne in early 2013, allegedly to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and potential Legislative Standing Committee Production Orders related to the controversial cancellation and relocation of the Oakville and Mississauga gas plants.

The Crown alleged the defendants obtained administrative rights through deception and hired an outside IT consultant to indiscriminately wipe hard drives.

The defendants claimed they sought only to delete personal information and Liberal Party documents from departing staff computers.

Justice Lipson found Livingston guilty on both remaining counts (Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer) but acquitted Miller due to insufficient evidence of her knowledge of Livingston's deceptive means in obtaining administrative rights.

The defendants, David Livingston and Laura Miller, pleaded not guilty to charges of breach of trust by a public official, mischief to data, and unauthorized use of a computer.

The Crown withdrew the breach of trust count at the close of its case.

The defendants brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on the remaining two counts.

The court found that while the Crown failed to establish that actual data was destroyed, there was sufficient evidence that the defendants attempted to commit mischief to data without legal justification or colour of right.

The motion was allowed in part on the mischief to data count, which was reduced to attempt to commit mischief to data.

The motion was dismissed on the unauthorized use of a computer count.

The Crown sought to qualify Robert Gagnon, a retired OPP officer, as an expert in computer systems operation and forensic recovery of computer data.

The defence opposed qualification, arguing that Gagnon's extensive involvement in the police investigation and his expressed bias regarding the defendants' guilt disqualified him from providing independent and impartial expert evidence.

The court excluded Gagnon's evidence, finding that he had conflated the roles of expert and investigator, participated extensively in investigative strategy and team meetings, and demonstrated lack of independence and impartiality through his communications recommending charges and providing strategic legal advice to investigators.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 20 months imposed by the trial judge for his involvement in a commercial conspiracy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentence, finding that the trial judge properly considered all relevant sentencing factors, including the commercial nature of the enterprise and the appellant's level of involvement.

The court also found that the trial judge adequately considered the parity principle in distinguishing the appellant's sentence from that of a co-conspirator who received 30 months.

The Crown prosecuted Dean Del Mastro, a Conservative candidate in the 2008 federal election, and Richard McCarthy, his Official Agent, for violations of the Canada Elections Act.

The charges included incurring election expenses exceeding campaign limits, making personal contributions exceeding limits, and filing false or incomplete election expense returns.

The central issue involved a $21,000 contract with Holinshed Research Group for voter identification and get-out-the-vote calling services during the election period.

The Crown alleged the contract was completed and paid for but not properly declared.

The Defence contended the contract was limited to $1,575 for partial GOTV calling only.

After a 15-day trial, the court found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted both accused on multiple counts.