W. Calvin Rosemond

The accused was charged with firearm offences after police executed a search warrant at a condominium unit and found a loaded restricted firearm in a bag in a bedroom closet.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove constructive possession, arguing the accused was the leaseholder and occupied the bedroom.

The court found that while the accused had joint control of the bedroom, the evidence did not rule out the reasonable inference that a co-occupant had sole possession of the hidden firearm without the accused's knowledge.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused, Amari Buchanan, faced charges including criminal harassment, trafficking in persons, and threatening bodily harm.

The Crown sought to admit two videotaped cautioned statements of the recanting complainant, J.J., for their truth under the principled exception to the hearsay rule (Khelawon application).

J.J. testified as a hostile witness, denying her prior allegations and claiming police pressure, drug influence, and memory loss due to a concussion.

The court found J.J.'s testimony lacked credibility, her memory loss contrived, and her hostility transparently aimed at exonerating the accused.

The court concluded that the police statements met the threshold reliability test, finding that J.J. appreciated the seriousness of her statements and the consequences of lying, and that the videotapes allowed for assessment of her demeanour.

The statements were admitted for their truth.

The applicant sought an urgent hearing for a restraining order under s. 9 of the Reopening Ontario Act to prevent the respondents from operating a restaurant in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.

The respondents requested more time to retain counsel and opposed the urgency.

The court scheduled an ex parte hearing for later in the week, allowing the respondents the option to attend or to challenge any resulting order at a later date.

The accused, Danna Millan, sought a bail review after being detained on tertiary grounds for serious charges including drug trafficking, firearms offences, aggravated assault, kidnapping, and extortion.

The application was based on a material change in circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 crisis and the addition of a third surety.

The court found that the proposed release plan, including three sureties and strict house arrest, sufficiently addressed the tertiary grounds, and granted release.

The accused applied for a bail review of a detention order on charges including possession for the purpose of trafficking and firearms offences.

The accused argued the justice of the peace erred by overemphasizing the strength of the Crown's case and that there were material changes in circumstances, including a new release plan, withdrawn charges, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the initial decision was not clearly inappropriate and the new circumstances, including the pandemic, would not have affected the balancing exercise given the accused's young age, health, and the unsuitability of a proposed surety.

The applicant, Shaheed Bacchus Ali, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for 22 charges, including firearms and drug trafficking.

The application was based on two material changes: a stronger release plan with 24/7 surety supervision and GPS monitoring, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the improved supervision plan adequately addressed secondary ground concerns regarding reoffending.

On the tertiary ground, while the Crown's case was strong and the charges serious, the court balanced these factors against the heightened risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities and the viability of the proposed release plan.

The court granted judicial interim release with strict conditions, including house arrest, GPS monitoring, and self-isolation.

The Crown applied to admit a recanting witness's prior videotaped statement to police for the truth of its contents under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The witness, who had been arrested for the same drug trafficking offences as the accused but released without charges, refused to adopt her statement during cross-examination under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court dismissed the application, finding the statement lacked threshold reliability due to the absence of procedural safeguards, such as an oath, warning, or opportunity to consult counsel.

The court also held that the substantive reliability of the statement, though corroborated by police observations, did not meet the high standard set out in Bradshaw.

Alternatively, the court would have excluded the statement under its residual discretion.