Vanessa V. Christie

In a multi-count indictment trial involving charges of human trafficking and prostitution, the Defence sought to cross-examine the complainant on three areas: a prior police attendance regarding an unrelated matter, internet postings from October 2015, and testimony from a Newmarket court proceeding in April 2016.

The court ruled that cross-examination on the prior police attendance and the Newmarket court proceedings was admissible.

These areas were deemed highly relevant to the complainant's credibility and the veracity of her allegations, particularly concerning her willingness to engage in prostitution, and were necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence.

The internet postings were found to have limited relevance and were not permitted.

The accused brought pretrial applications challenging various police searches and his statements under sections 8, 10(a), 10(b), and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found several Charter violations, including an unreasonable "clearing search" of his residence, serious breaches of his right to counsel during police interviews, and an unreasonable search of his parents' residence based on unconstitutionally obtained information.

The court also found a section 8 violation regarding the search of electronic data outside the authorized time period.

Applying the Grant analysis, the court excluded evidence from the clearing search, the accused's statements, and evidence from his parents' residence, but admitted the electronic data due to its importance and minimal impact on the accused's rights.

The Crown applied for an advance ruling to qualify a police detective as an expert witness in cocaine use, pricing, sale, distribution, and modus operandi for a jury trial involving drug trafficking and other charges.

The defense opposed the application or sought to curtail the evidence.

The court partially granted the application, allowing the expert to provide general information about cocaine and drug trafficking indicators (e.g., money, debt lists) but disallowed specific interpretations of text messages and an ultimate opinion on whether the seized cocaine was for trafficking, finding these unnecessary and too close to the ultimate issue for the jury.

The applicant, David D’Souza, facing a thirteen-count indictment for human trafficking, prostitution, firearms, and drug offences, brought a pretrial application for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court analyzed the 28-month delay from the charge date to the anticipated trial completion, attributing 4.5 months of Crown/institutional delay in the Ontario Court of Justice and 6.5 months in the Superior Court of Justice, totaling 11 months.

This total was found to be below the guidelines set out in R. v. Morin.

While acknowledging some actual prejudice to the accused (exacerbated stress, anxiety, foreclosed employment opportunities, and inability to travel), the court characterized it as between slight and moderate.

Balancing the prejudice against society's interest in having the charges tried on their merits, the court concluded that the delay was not unreasonable and dismissed the application.

The accused, charged with human trafficking and prostitution-related offences involving a 17-year-old complainant, brought pretrial applications challenging the constitutionality of the human trafficking provisions in the Criminal Code and seeking a stay of the prostitution charges for abuse of process.

The court dismissed the constitutionality application, finding that the human trafficking provisions are neither void for vagueness nor overbroad.

The court also dismissed the abuse of process application, concluding it was premature and lacked an air of reality that the accused could rely on exceptions under the new prostitution regime.

The accused, a pharmacist, pleaded guilty to defrauding the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan of $2.5 million over three years by knowingly overbilling for pharmaceuticals not purchased or dispensed.

The accused had repaid $2 million in restitution but $500,000 remained outstanding.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in custody, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence despite evidence of the accused's depression, drug addiction, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court emphasized that general deterrence is the paramount sentencing principle in large-scale fraud cases involving breach of trust.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to section 253(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded by way of a blended voir dire on Charter issues.

The Crown's evidence established grounds for the traffic stop, roadside demand, and breath demand.

The defendant's expert evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding the reliability of the Intoxilyzer 5000C results, particularly concerning an ambient fail that occurred during testing and potential interfering substances in the breath room.

The court found that the defendant successfully rebutted the presumption of accuracy and entered an acquittal.

The applicant sought to quash a preliminary inquiry order committing him to stand trial for second degree murder arising from the death of his infant child.

He argued the preliminary inquiry justice committed a jurisdictional error by failing to consider his exculpatory statement that the injuries resulted from an accidental fall during bathing.

The court held that the preliminary inquiry justice properly considered both inculpatory circumstantial evidence and exculpatory direct evidence in accordance with the test articulated in R. v. Arcuri.

The expert medical evidence describing the severity and nature of the injuries, combined with conflicting statements by the applicant, was reasonably capable of supporting an inference of intentional infliction of injuries.

As a result, the committal for trial was proper and no jurisdictional error occurred.