William Goodman Flintoft Caven

The court considered whether the mandatory minimum sentence for robbery with a firearm under s. 344(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, recently upheld as constitutional in R. v. Hilbach, would violate the Charter rights of Mr. Dennis, who had already served a sentence for possession of the same firearm.

The court found that the total sentence was not grossly disproportionate and that the circumstances did not warrant a constitutional exemption or a finding of double punishment.

The mandatory minimum was imposed.

The defendant, Tranh To Nguyen, was charged with the importation of 11 kilograms of heroin into Canada, found in a checked suitcase upon arrival at Toronto Pearson Airport.

The central issue was whether the defendant had knowledge and control of the drugs.

The defendant testified, denying knowledge and claiming the suitcase was a gift for a banker from a business associate in Johannesburg.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony, finding his account of the business trip and the suitcase implausible and his statements to border officers untruthful.

Based on the cumulative circumstances and the high value of the drugs, the court inferred full knowledge and control, leading to a finding of guilt.

The applicant, Jahson Sanderson, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal on a charge of robbery under s.343(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Crown failed to establish the requisite link between the violence or threat of violence and the purpose of the theft.

The evidence indicated that any violence or threats were not for the purpose of extorting the vehicle or preventing/overcoming resistance to its stealing, but rather for other purposes or as an impulsive act.

The accused was convicted after trial of assault causing bodily harm following a senseless, unprovoked attack on the victim in the Church Street area.

The victim sustained severe injuries including a severed orbital nerve, crushed cheek and sinus bones, requiring a five-hour surgical operation and resulting in permanent facial numbness and dental complications.

The accused, with an extensive criminal record including numerous violent offences, was sentenced to 15 months in jail less 9 months pre-sentence custody at a 1.5 to 1 enhancement, followed by three years probation.

The court emphasized specific deterrence and denunciation as the primary sentencing principles while considering the accused's background of substance abuse and efforts at rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana following a search of his vehicle.

The search was initially conducted under section 32(5) of the Ontario Liquor Licence Act after the officer observed open alcohol in the vehicle.

The officer subsequently searched the trunk and opened a shopping bag containing approximately 100 grams of marijuana.

The court found that while the initial search was lawful, the search of the shopping bag exceeded the lawful scope of the search power under the Liquor Licence Act.

Applying the three-factor test from R. v. Grant, the court excluded the evidence of the marijuana, finding that the seriousness of the Charter-infringing conduct, the significant impact on the accused's privacy interests, and the credibility concerns regarding the officer's testimony outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The defendant moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a neuropsychological defence medical examination in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the matter had already been certified for trial.

The court granted leave, finding that defence counsel’s mistaken understanding regarding the plaintiff’s willingness to attend the examination constituted a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

Applying the principles governing additional defence medical examinations, the court held that the examination was necessary to allow the defence physiatrist to finalize his opinion regarding the cause of the plaintiff’s cognitive impairments, particularly in light of a prior head injury and the plaintiff’s expert report.

The motion was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination.