Victoria Palermo

The applicant, charged with drug and firearm offences following a robbery investigation, brought a Charter application alleging his s. 8 rights were breached by a police search of a residence.

The court found the Information to Obtain (ITO) the search warrant lacked a sufficient evidentiary nexus connecting the applicant to the searched premises.

Consequently, the search violated the applicant's s. 8 rights.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the serious nature of the Charter-infringing conduct and the high expectation of privacy in a residence outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The evidence seized during the search was excluded.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking after police found the drugs in a concealed compartment of a vehicle he had abandoned following a shooting at a mall.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs.

The court found that multiple other individuals had access to and used the vehicle, and there was no forensic evidence connecting the accused to the drugs.

The court concluded that it was reasonably possible someone else hid the drugs in the vehicle without the accused's knowledge, and therefore the Crown failed to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.

The defendants were charged with first-degree murder for allegedly assisting two unidentified shooters in killing the victim at a social club.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records, GPS data, and surveillance video, to prove the defendants helped position the getaway vehicle and locate the victim.

The court found that while the defendants knowingly assisted in a plan targeting the victim, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether they knew the perpetrators intended to commit murder.

However, applying section 21(2) of the Criminal Code, the court concluded the defendants knew or ought to have known that a probable consequence of their common unlawful purpose was an inherently dangerous act.

Both defendants were found guilty of manslaughter as an included offence.

The court sentenced Emmanuel Kitenge, who pled guilty to manslaughter and failing to stop for police, for his role as a getaway driver in a fatal shooting.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the applicable sentencing principles.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including Kitenge’s youth, lack of criminal record, difficult upbringing, and significant rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years less one day for manslaughter (with credit for pre-sentence custody), a concurrent nine-month sentence for failing to stop for police, probation, and ancillary orders.

The court sentenced Daniel Thompson, a youthful first offender, for trafficking in cocaine, possessing cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possessing a loaded restricted firearm.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offences, Mr. Thompson’s personal background, the positions of the parties, and the applicable sentencing principles and ranges.

After weighing aggravating and mitigating factors—including Mr. Thompson’s youth, lack of record, remorse, and the impact of anti-Black racism—the court imposed a global sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment, concurrent on all counts, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and issued ancillary orders.

The applicant, Daniel Thompson, brought a motion under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence obtained during the execution of a search warrant at 124 Cadillac Crescent, Brampton, alleging a s. 8 Charter infringement due to insufficient reasonable grounds for the warrant.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO), considering alleged omissions and misrepresentations by the affiant.

The court found that despite a minor omission regarding the applicant's post-buy travels, the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence, including MTO records, vehicle registration, and surveillance, to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The court relied on the affiant's detailed experience in drug investigations and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, as no Charter violation was found.

Shaqueme Martin applied to dismiss human trafficking and sexual services charges under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charges to the original trial date was 1028 days, exceeding the Jordan ceiling.

The court found that the delay after September 19, 2022, was attributable to the defence's refusal of an available trial date, which would have brought the total delay within the presumptive ceiling.

Consequently, the presumption of unreasonable delay did not arise.

The court also found that the case was not a "clear case" warranting a stay below the presumptive ceiling, as the overall delay was not "markedly" longer than it should have been.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought to exclude evidence seized during a residential search warrant, arguing a breach of her s. 8 Charter rights.

The warrant was based on an Information to Obtain relying heavily on a confidential informant who alleged purchasing crack cocaine from the applicant.

The court applied the Debot criteria and found the informant's information was credible, compelling, and sufficiently corroborated by police investigation.

The application was dismissed as there was a solid basis for the issuing justice to find reasonable and probable grounds.

In a multi-accused pre-trial Charter motion arising from a violent home invasion and related firearms and conspiracy allegations, the applicants sought excision of Home Depot records, Instagram-derived identification evidence, tower dump material, and Part VI interceptions.

The court held the applicants lacked standing to challenge the Home Depot records and store surveillance, and that the private Instagram account did not attract an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the circumstances.

The court further upheld the tower dump authorization under s. 487.015 of the Criminal Code, found the subsequent subscriber query authorized, and rejected claims that the ITO relied on speculation.

Applying Garofoli and Araujo, the court concluded that, after amplification and excision, the Part VI authorization still had sufficient grounds and satisfied investigative necessity.

The motion was dismissed, with remaining search issues relating to later searches to be addressed separately.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, pointing a firearm, and multiple firearms possession offences after assaulting a bystander and brandishing a handgun outside a hotel.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 6 years, while the defence sought 5 to 5.5 years and argued for a time-served sentence based on enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found a global sentence of 6 years was appropriate given the gravity of the offences, but reduced the sentence to time served (equivalent to 5 years and 1 month) after applying enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody and harsh conditions, followed by probation.