Convicted Armed Robber Released Due to Sentencing Delay

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has released Ammaan Charley (“Charley”) from custody due to an excessive sentencing delay. Charley was facing a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years for his conviction of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a restricted firearm in January 2017.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On January 15, 2015, Charley, 22-years-old at the time, entered Mr. Jerk’s West Indian Grocery on Eglinton Avenue West with a loaded revolver. He proceeded to pistol whip the clerk on his forehead and skull, ripped the gold chain off of his neck and demanded money at gunpoint. The clerk believed he was going to be killed and began wrestling over the gun. The struggle ended up in the laneway outside of the store and the clerk accidentally fired two shots.

At the time of the incident, Charley had a criminal record of violent crime and gun possession.

In January, 2017, Justice E.M. Morgan ruled that Charley was guilty of armed robbery, aggravated assault, and possession of a loaded, restricted firearm.

Charley has remained in custody at the Toronto South Detention Centre from the date of his arrest through to the date of his section 11(b) Charter of Rights and Freedoms application regarding sentencing delay.

WHAT HAPPENED POST TRIAL?

Following Charley’s conviction, the Crown brought an Application detaining Charley for the purposes of having a psychiatric assessment to be used as evidence in a proposed application to have him declared a dangerous or long-term offender. It took seven months to receive his records. The request for the psychiatric assessment was dismissed on June 22, 2017.

The defence brought a number of constitutional challenges regarding pre-trial detention and the manner in which inmates are treated at the Detention Centre. These accusations included no outside yard time, no recreational facilities, double bunking in cells designed for a single inmate, no visitation rights except using a screen through a video camera, and routine invasive searches. These challenges resulted in several days of evidentiary hearings and legal arguments. Some of these constitutional challenges were dismissed on February 22, 2018. At the time of the application regarding sentencing delay, the balance of the evidence regarding the constitutional challenges was still waiting to be completed.

SENTENCING DELAY

In late June, 2018, Justice Edward Morgan stayed the charges against Charley relying upon the Supreme Court of Canada’s R. v. Jordan decision. The charges were stayed by the court on the basis that too much time had passed since Charley’s conviction and that his constitutional rights had been breached by the unreasonable delay.

According to the Jordan decision, which we have previously blogged about, cases tried in the Superior Court must be concluded within 30 months. To date, most of the cases reviewed by the courts for violating the Jordan decision concern pre-trial delays. In this case, the court was looking at a sentencing delay that occurred after the accused had been found guilty. Charley was convicted 24 months after charges were laid and his sentencing was not scheduled to occur until 17 months later.

The Jordan decision only briefly referenced sentencing delays. The Supreme Court wrote:

[W]e make no comment about how this ceiling should apply to [Jordan] applications brought after a conviction is entered, or whether additional time should be added to the ceiling in such cases.

Justice Morgan reviewed the history of proceedings in detail in his written decision, making appropriate calculations for any delays attributed to the defence. He concluded that the total delay in this case was 32 months (24 months of pre-trial delay and 8 months of sentencing delay).

Justice Morgan concluded that this delay was above the presumptive ceiling as set out in the Jordan decision. That decision upholds the protection of security of the person and the right to be tried within a reasonable time. Therefore, Justice Morgan concluded that Charley’s rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been infringed, the proceedings were stayed, and Charley was released.

It is unclear at this time whether the Crown prosecutor will appeal this decision. It is possible that the Ontario Attorney General’s Office will request that the Court of Appeal review this decision as it is sure to have a significant impact on the justice system.

We will continue to follow any developments in this case and will provide updates in this blog should they occur.

In the meantime, if you have been charged with a criminal offence or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are not afraid to fight for your rights and protect your interests.

Former Reservist Found Not Guilty in Fatal Shooting of Unarmed Man

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

After six hours of deliberations, a Hamilton jury found Peter Khill (“Khill”), a former Canadian Forces reservist, not guilty in the fatal shooting of Jon Styres (“Styres”), an unarmed First Nations man from Ohsweken, Ontario.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In the early morning hours of February 4, 2016, Khill and his girlfriend were woken up by two loud, banging noises. When he looked outside, Khill saw that the lights were on in his 2001 GMC pickup truck.

Khill proceeded to grab a 12 gauge shotgun from his bedroom closet. He loaded it with two shells and ran outside in a t-shirt and boxers to confront Styres, who was trying to steal his truck. He came up behind Styres, who was leaning over the passenger-side seat, and shouted “Hey, hands up!”. Styres reacted by turning toward Khill with his hands sweeping forward in a motion that allegedly led Khill to believe that he had a gun. This provoked Khill to fire two close-range shots that killed Styres.

The Superior Court of Ontario was told that Styres did not have a gun that night and was only carrying a knife in his pocket.

The Crown prosecutor told the court that Khill was not acting in self-defence and that he “took the law into his own hands”. Khill could have stayed safe in his home and called the police when he realized his truck was broken into. Furthermore, the Crown lawyer argued that Khill’s action in shouting instructions caused Styres to jump in surprise, which caused Khill to feel frightened and open fire in response.

Assistant Crown attorney, Steve O’Brien, argued that Khill only followed the parts of his training that allowed him to slyly approach and kill an enemy. O’Brien stated that Khill “completely ignored, that civilian life is not a war zone, that soldiers must take time to genuinely assess the situation. There is not one law for ex-soldiers and one law for everybody else.”

Khill pleaded not guilty to a charge of second-degree murder. His lawyer argued that his actions were justified on the basis of self-defence as Khill feared for his life and believed that Styres had a gun. It was argued that Khill was only acting in accordance with his military training and experience. Khill’s lawyer, Jeff Manishen, stated:

This young man who lived to defend his country wanted to continue to defend his own life. That young man should be found not guilty.

JURY SELECTION

This trial raises some of the same legal issues that were raised during the controversial trial of Gerald Stanley (“Stanley”) who was accused of killing Colten Boushie (“Boushie”).

In the Stanley case, an all-white jury in Saskatchewan acquitted Stanley of second-degree murder in the death of Boushie, an Indigenous man. Many critics suggested that the all-white jury had reached the wrong verdict. Furthermore, some believed that the defence used their peremptory challenges to dismiss any potential jurors who appeared to be Indigenous. Peremptory challenges are given in equal number to both the defence and the prosecutor to allow them to disqualify any juror, without reason.

In the Khill case, the jury was screened for possible racial bias. Each candidate was asked a challenge for cause question: “Would your ability to judge the evidence in this case without bias, prejudice or partiality, be affected by the fact that the deceased victim is an Indigenous person and the person charged with this crime is a white person?”. Each of the 12 jurors responded “no”.

It was reported that none of the jury members were Indigenous, however, the jury did include at least one non-white individual.

Mere weeks after the Stanley verdict, the government introduced legislation to eliminate peremptory challenges (Bill C-75). We have previously blogged about this new Bill, which has passed second reading.

Khill’s lawyer stated that getting rid of peremptory challenges is “wrong-headed” and that bias can be avoided through the use of challenge for cause questions, such as the one used in the Khill trial. He went on to suggest that the federal government should review Bill C-75 and re-consider the elimination of peremptory challenges.

We will continue to provide updates regarding the status of Bill C-75 as information becomes available. In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding charges laid against you or your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP at 905-404-1947 or online. Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights. For your convenience, we offer a 24-hour phone service. We are available when you need us most.

Man Sentenced to Life in Prison After Killing Woman Who Begged for It

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Joseph D’Arcy Schluter (“Schluter”) pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of 2^nd-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison in the shooting death of Cindy Enger (“Enger”).

Schluter admitted to fatally shooting Enger in the head 8 times with a .22 calibre firearm on January 22, 2016 after she begged him to kill her.

Both Schluter and Enger expressed their love for each other in a cellphone video taken just minutes before Enger’s death. Enger faced the camera and admitted she wanted to end her life due to pain. Schluter can be heard off-camera telling her that he loves her and Enger replied that she loves him too.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On January 24, 2016, police were called to Enger’s home by her ex-husband after he tried for two days to drop off their son at her home. When there was no response, police forced their way inside Enger’s home and discovered that she was dead.

The Crown prosecutor read an agreed statement of facts in Court before Justice Alan Macleod. According to the statement, Enger had suffered from chronic pain possibly related to a car accident. She had attempted suicide on one previous occasion, but was not successful.

Schluter and Enger had previously dated and then began spending time together again as friends in December, 2015. On numerous occasions, Enger tried to convince Schluter to kill her and make it look like an unsolved homicide. Schluter refused and tried to change Enger’s mind.

Schluter first brought a gun to Enger’s home on January 8, 2016, but he was not able to carry out the plan that they had come up with. Enger continued to beg Schluter to end her life.

On January 22, 2016 on his way to see Enger, Schluter stopped to buy a movie ticket as an alibi. When he arrived at her home, he continued to try to convince Enger to abandon the plan. They proceeded to her laundry room where Schluter inserted ear plugs, said a prayer, and proceeded to shoot Enger in the back of the head several times. Then Schluter vacated the premises, drove to his father’s home and burned his clothing and put the gun away.

Schluter pleaded guilty to second-degree murder after a plea deal was reached between the Crown prosecutor and Schluter’s lawyer. The two lawyers proposed a life sentence without parole for a period of 10 years. The Judge accepted these terms.

In his sentencing submissions, defence lawyer Steve Wojick submitted that this “ is not a case of hate, it is not a case of revenge, it is not a case of jealousy, it is not a case of monetary gain.”

Crown prosecutor Mike Ewenson was sympathetic to the situation that Schluter was in, but felt that he should have reached out for help and sought assistance.

Justice Macleod called the case “a very tragic, tragic event”.

WHAT IS MURDER?

In Canada, there is no offence more serious than an allegation of homicide. This offence carries with it some of the most serious penalties available, if convicted. Homicide is defined in section 222 of the Criminal Code as follows:

222 (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

According to the Criminal Code, culpable homicide is murder when the person who causes the death either means to cause death or means to cause bodily harm knowing that it is likely to cause death (section 229).

First degree murder is premeditated. In order to be convicted of first degree murder, Crown prosecutors must prove that the accused took the life of another in the following situations:

When it is planned and deliberate;
When a police officer or prison worker is murdered; or
When it occurs during the commission of certain offences, such as sexual assault, kidnapping, hijacking, terrorism, intimidation or certain gang-related activities.

According to the Criminal Code, second degree murder is defined as all other murder other than first degree murder. Second degree murder is a deliberate killing that occurs without planning.

Anyone convicted of murder, in any degree, must be sentenced to imprisonment for life. An adult convicted of second degree murder typically serves prison time of 10 years to 25 years until he/she is eligible for parole, which is at the discretion of the judge. This can be found codified in section 745 of the Criminal Code.

Following time served in prison on a sentence for murder, the individual will continue to report to a parole officer for the rest of his/her life. If any of the conditions set by the court for release on parole are not met, there is no hearing and the individual will return to jail.

If you require a lawyer for any type of homicide offence, or any other serious criminal charge, the lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP can help. Contact our office online or at 905-404-1947 to speak with one of our experienced lawyers who can handle your case. We have a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.

Big Changes Coming to Canada’s Impaired Driving Laws

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

We are all aware that a significant piece of legislation, the Cannabis Act, has become law. This bill will come into force on October 17, 2018 and it will encompass all the rules regarding the control and regulation of how cannabis is grown, distributed and sold.

There is another piece of legislation, Bill C-46, related to the legalization of marijuana that also received royal assent last week. Bill C-46, also known as the Impaired Driving Act, is an overhaul of Canada’s impaired driving laws.

WHAT IS BILL C-46?

Bill C-46 will reform alcohol-impaired driving and drug-impaired driving and police have been given new tools to detect and prosecute drivers.

The bill is comprised of two parts. Part 1 creates three new offences for driving under the influence of various amounts of drugs and stipulates legal limits of such drugs. This part also requires drivers not to drive within two hours of being over the legal limits and allows police to conduct tests to screen for drugs using “approved drug screening equipment”.

Part 2 of the bill raises the maximum penalty for impaired driving, reclassifies impaired-driving as a “serious criminality” offence and gives police the power to perform mandatory alcohol screening without reasonable grounds to suspect impairment.

The following are the four major changes to Canada’s impaired driving laws as set out in Bill C-46.

Random Roadside Breath Testing

The new legislation will allow police to request a roadside breath test from any driver. They will not need reasonable suspicion that the person has been drinking (i.e. smell of alcohol on a driver’s breath or slurred speech). Those who refuse the roadside breath test will face a criminal conviction with similar penalties to an impaired driving conviction.

Lawyers and civil liberties groups argue that this change in the law violates the Charter protection against unreasonable search. Furthermore, there is concern that this type of practice will disproportionately affect minorities due to racial profiling.

However, Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould is certain that this directive will survive a court challenge. She referred to mandatory alcohol screening as “minimally intrusive, but the benefits in lives saved will be immeasurable”.

The government equated a mandatory breath sample to the requirement to show a driver’s licence.

Roadside Saliva Testing

The new law would allow police to use roadside screening devices that test saliva for the presence of drugs, including THC (the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis). However, unlike alcohol breath tests, police will need to have a reasonable suspicion before requiring this test.

It is unclear when this type of testing will be used by the police as there are a number of steps that still need to take place. The government has yet to approve the devices to be used by the police. Justice Minister Wilson-Raybould will then have to make a ministerial order to approve the devices after a 30-day public consultation. Finally, the devices will need to be purchased and officers will need to be trained on how to use them.

THC Blood Levels

The new legislation will allow police to lay an impaired driving charge based solely on blood test results for THC in blood without needing to further prove impairment.

The government has proposed “per se levels” based on nanograms per millimeter of blood as follows:

A THC level between 2 and 5 ng would be a lower-level offence with a fine of up to $1,000;
A THC level above 5 ng would result in the same penalties as an alcohol-impaired driving conviction, including mandatory minimum penalties of a $1,000 fine on a first offence, 30 days imprisonment on a second offence and 120 days imprisonment on a third offence;
A mixture of a THC level above 2.5 ng and a blood alcohol concentration above 50 mg per 100 mL would have the same penalties as above.

10 Years Maximum Sentence for Impaired Driving

Under Bill C-46, impaired driving convictions will be considered “serious criminality” offences and the maximum sentence will be raised from 5 years to 10 years. This change in the law will greater affect those that could potentially lose permanent residence status and face deportation (i.e. foreign students, workers, visitors and permanent residents).

WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATUS OF BILL-46?

Part 1 of the Impaired Driving Act will roll out this summer; however, Part 2 of the bill will not come into force for another 180 days. In the meantime, as the bill comes into force we will report on any developments through this blog.

If you have been charged with a driving offence of any kind or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced and knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.

Sexual Offender Sentenced to 15 Years After Putting Woman in Coma

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Denzel Dre Colton Bird, (“Bird”) 21-years-old, pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault, breaking and entering and theft last fall. On June 15, 2018, he was sentenced to 15 years in jail for striking a woman from behind with a metal pipe, dragging her into an alley and sexually assaulting her in Alberta.

The victim cannot be identified under court order.

WHAT HAPPENED?

In September 2016, the 25-year-old woman was walking to work in the dark at approximately 6:30 a.m. when she was attacked by Bird. The attack caused multiple skull fractures and broken facial bones. She was discovered by two men who found her hanging halfway out of a garbage can and was taken to hospital with life-threatening injuries. Due to the multiple skull fractures and bleeding on her brain, her doctors put her into a medically induced coma for several weeks. After coming out of her coma, she had to learn how to walk and talk again. She was released from hospital in late January 2017.

Earlier on the morning of the attack, Bird had broken into a garage where he stole the pipe that he used in the attack and a jacket. Police found the victim’s blood on Bird’s shoes and on the stolen jacket.

WHAT HAPPENED DURING SENTENCING?

In her victim impact statement, the woman wrote that there were times that she wished she had not survived the attack. She stated that she did not feel that she is the same person since the attack. She described herself as a survivor, but admitted she continues to struggle with her emotions, has trouble with her balance and contracted a sexually transmitted disease from Bird.

The Crown prosecutor requested 20 years in prison for Bird.

Justice Jerry LeGrandeur sentenced Bird to 15 years in jail. Bird was given 2 ½ years of credit for time already served in jail.

Justice LeGrandeur held that the viciousness of the attack on the woman was an aggravating factor.

The consequences of this criminal act were profoundly physically and mentally disabling for the victim and emotionally traumatic and debilitating for her husband and family members.

LeGrandeur also acknowledged that there were mitigating factors when determining the best sentence for Bird. These factors included his youth, his guilty plea and the fact that he was remorseful.

LeGradeur also referred to the Gladue report during sentencing. This report examines an Indigenous offender’s upbringing and background and how it may have played a part in their actions. Bird’s lawyer submitted that his family were survivors of residential schools, he never met his father, he showed symptoms of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, he had substance abuse issues and had never received any counseling or treatment, he was abused as a child and has a lower than average intelligence.

WHAT IS A GLADUE REPORT?

A Gladue report gets its name from the 1999 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Gladue. A Gladue report is a type of pre-sentencing and bail hearing report that a court can request when considering sentencing an offender of Indigenous background under section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code. This section specifically directs courts to exercise restraint, and to consider the particular situation of Indigenous persons when determining the sentence to be imposed for crimes committed by those who self-identify as Indigenous people.

A Gladue report will inform the judge about the personal circumstances of the offender, including information such as:

where the individual grew up (on-reserve, off-reserve, rural, urban);
where the individual lives;
whether or not the individual or members of their family have been in foster care;
whether the individual or family members attended residential schools;
whether they have struggled with substance abuse, been affected by someone else’s substance abuse or grown up in a home with substance abuse or addictions;
whether or not there are counseling programs or rehabilitations programs in the community; and
whether or not the individual participates in community cultural events and ceremonies.

The intention behind this approach is to lead to a restorative justice remedy and will often allow for a sentence with no jail time, which helps reduce the over-representation of Indigenous people in Canadian jails. According to a Statistics Canada report released on Tuesday, Indigenous people comprised 27% of the federal prison population in 2016-2017 despite the fact that Indigenous people make up only 5% of Canada’s population.

A restorative justice remedy is one that emphasizes healing the harm done by the offence and rehabilitating the offender to avoid future harms. This is in keeping with Indigenous views of justice.

If you have been charged with a sexual assault offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience.

Charges Laid after Children Left in Hot Car Alone

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In the small space of a car, temperatures can rise rapidly. This can result in an individual being unable to regulate their internal temperature. In this type of environment, the body (especially a small body) can go into shock quickly, and circulation to vital organs can fail.

Due to their size, infants and small children can dramatically be affected by extreme temperatures. Their core temperature can increase three to five times faster than that of an adult. Hyperthermia can occur when the body’s temperature rises to dangerously high levels and threatens your health. The average body temperature is 37 degrees Celsius. An individual is considered to be suffering from hyperthermia when the body’s core temperature reaches 40.5 degrees Celsius.

General Motors of Canada funded a study that found that on a 35 degree Celsius day a previously air-conditioned small car when exposed to the sun can rise in temperature to over 50 degrees Celsius within 20 minutes. Within 40 minutes, the temperature inside the car can rise to 65.5 degrees Celsius.

More than half of all children left in hot cars were trapped there unintentionally. These children were often left behind in a moment of forgetfulness or trapped after playing unsupervised in an unlocked vehicle.

According to the Canada Safety Council, an average of 37 people die each year in the United States as a result of being locked in a hot car. There are no statistics of this nature available for Canada.

RECENT EVENTS

Earlier this week, a 29-year-old woman, Thuy Thanh Tam Nguyen (“Nguyen”), was criminally charged after leaving her infant in a locked parked car.

Halton police attended a plaza at Trafalgar Road and Dundas in Oakville last Sunday afternoon following a 911 call. Paramedics were called to examine the 11 month old infant boy. Fortunately, the infant suffered no physical harm. Nguyen was allegedly shopping at a nearby store for approximately 90 minutes.

Nguyen has been charged with abandoning a child and failing to provide the necessaries of life. She will return to court in Milton in July.

Just two weeks ago, police charged a 53-year-old Hamilton man after he left his friend’s young child alone in a locked car. A woman walking in a Walmart parking lot spotted the child in the car and coached him on how to unlock the vehicle. The 7-year-old child ”was soaking wet from head to toe in sweat”. He was examined by paramedics and cleared at the scene. The man is to appear in court on June 20, 2018.

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE CAUSING DEATH

In the circumstances when a child dies after being left alone in a car, the adult who was entrusted with taking care of the child is often charged with criminal negligence causing death.

This was the case when a three-year-old boy died in Burlington after being left in a hot car on May 23, 2018. By the time police arrived on scene, the boy was outside of the car and was pronounced dead. The temperature that day had reached 26.6 degrees Celsius. An autopsy determined that the preliminary cause of death was hyperthermia. Shaun Pennell faces one count of criminal negligence causing death and one count of failing to provide the necessaries of life. Pennell will appear back in court in Milton on June 27.

Typically, a conviction of criminal negligence causing death occurs when the accused person does not mean to injure or cause bodily harm through their reckless actions. Section 219 of the Criminal Code defines the accused as showing “wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons”. The maximum sentence is life in jail.

There are a wide range of sentences available in cases of criminal negligence causing death due to the numerous ways in which the offence can be committed.

In the case of 2-year-old Eva Ravikovich (“Eva”), who died when she was left in a car by a daycare worker in Vaughan, Olena Panfilova (“Panfilova”) was sentenced to 22 months in jail and three years on probation. Panfilova pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death. Panfilova had 35 children in her illegal daycare and had forgotten that she left Eva in the car outside the daycare. She also tried to cover up her forgetfulness by pretending that the child died during a nap.

In the recent case of R. v. Simons, Elmarie Simons pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and was sentenced last month in Calgary. Simons, an unlicensed daycare home operator, had left an 18-month-old toddler in a car seat in a dark closet to run errands at Walmart and McDonald’s. The child died from asphyxiation caused by the car seat strap as the leg straps of the seat were not properly buckled and the child slid down in the car seat to such a degree that the chest harness strap choked her. Simons was sentenced to 3 and a half years in prison.

RECOMMENDATIONS

It is recommended to always keep cars locked while in garages or on driveways to prevent children from inadvertently becoming trapped in a vehicle. It is also suggested that adults keep their car keys in a safe place.

It is also recommended to make it a habit to place your cell phone or purse in the back seat. This would require the driver to check the back seat before leaving the vehicle on a regular basis.

If you come across a child or animal in distress that has been left alone in a hot vehicle it is imperative that you call 911 immediately.

It cannot be emphasized enough that no child or pet should be left alone in a hot vehicle, even for a few minutes.

If you have questions about your legal rights, please contact the experienced and knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience.

Jury Finds Lovers Guilty of First-Degree Murder

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

After five days of deliberations, a Toronto jury have found Michael Ivezic (“Ivezic”) and Demitry Papasotiriou-Lanteigne (“Papasotiriou-Lanteigne”) guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Allan Lanteigne (“Lanteigne”).

The Crown prosecutor alleged that Ivezic and Papasotiriou-Lanteigne conspired to kill the latter’s spouse in the foyer of his Ossington Avenue home on March 2, 2011. It was alleged that the two accused were having an affair and plotted the crime to access the victim’s $2 million life insurance policy and depart for Greece to start a life together.

The two men will return to court on June 7, 2018 when victim impact statements will be read from Lanteigne’s family. They will also receive their sentence at that time. A first-degree murder conviction carries with it a mandatory sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole for 25 years.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Lanteigne was found dead in his home on March 3, 2011. There were no signs of forced entry and police did not find the murder weapon. An autopsy revealed that Lanteigne was beaten to death.

Lanteigne and Papsotiriou-Lanteigne were married on November 27, 2004. Their relationship “fizzled out” in 2008, although they continued to live together. At some point in 2009, Ivezic and Papasotiriou-Lanteigne began having an affair. Ivezic was even given a key to the house by Papasotiriou-Lanteigne.

By the spring of 2010, Papasotiriou-Lanteigne moved to Greece where his father lived. He continued to pay for airline tickets for Ivezic to visit him. These expenses were paid for by Lanteigne who was working two jobs at the time in Toronto. There were various emails read to the jury written by Lanteigne that indicated that he was tired of giving Papasotiriou-Lanteigne money. Lanteigne threatened to cut off his cheating spouse.

Papasotiriou-Lanteigne was arrested on a visit to Toronto in November, 2012, when he returned to Canada for court proceedings related to his claim for Lanteigne’s life insurance payout.

Ivezic was arrested by authorities in Greece and extradicted to Canada in June, 2013. Ivezic had left his wife and children and was living in Greece with Papsotiriou-Lanteigne as of May 2011.

Both men denied any involvement in the death of Lanteigne.

Crown prosecutors alleged that Papasotirious-Lanteigne “lured” Lanteigne to their home on the evening of his death. An email dated March 2, 2011 was read to the jury from Papasotiriou-Lanteigne requesting that Lanteigne call him in Greece as soon as he got home.

The key piece of evidence was DNA found under the fingernails of the deceased’s right hand belonging to Ivezic. The prosecution argued that this evidence was left as the victim fought for his life. Ivezic argued that his DNA was planted or ended up there as part of an “innocent transfer”. Ivezic suggested that maybe his DNA was transferred to Lanteigne when he and the victim had touched the same surface or when they shared lunch together days before the murder. However, there was no evidence at trial to suggest that Ivezic was friends with the deceased or that they had lunch together.

This case has lasted for many years with both accused challenging every aspect of the case, including allegations that the Crown prosecutors hid disclosure, tampered with police records and evidence, lied to the defence and the court and colluded with police. Furthermore, the accused had more than a dozen defence lawyers and court-appointed lawyers appear on their behalf since they were charged. There was even a period of time during the trial that Ivezic represented himself before the jury.

Following the victim’s death, Papasotiriou filed claims against two firms that insured his spouse as he was seeking $2 million. Papasotiriou is named as the sole beneficiary on the victim’s life insurance policy.

RARE REINSTATEMENT OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER CHARGE

In September, 2014 following a preliminary hearing, an Ontario Court judge discharged Papasotiriou-Lanteigne, a Toronto lawyer, on the basis that there was not enough evidence to convict him.

A preliminary hearing is held in cases involving serious crimes where the prosecution must show a judge that there is a bare minimum of evidence to justify a full trial. This is often a chance for an accused’s lawyer to see what case the prosecution has against their client.

In October, 2014, the Ministry of the Attorney General signed a preferred indictment that reinstated the first-degree murder charge against Papsotiriou-Lanteigne.

This is a unique occurrence permitted by section 577 of the Criminal Code. The purpose of this section was described by Southin J.A. of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Charlie as follows:

Such a power is arecognition of the ultimate constitutional responsibility of Attorneys General to ensure that those who ought to be brought to trial are brought to trial.

We will continue to follow this case and report in this blog on any developments as they occur.

Court of Appeal Ordered Two Jail Guards to Stand Trial for their Role in Inmate’s Death

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

On March 5, 2014, corrections officers, Leslie Lonsbary (“Lonsbary”) and Stephen Jurkus (“Jurkus”), were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life following the death of inmate, Adam Kargus (“Kargus”).

Kargus was beaten by his cellmate at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (“EMDC”) and was found dead in a jailhouse shower stall on November 1, 2013. Anthony George pleaded guilty to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison (with no possibility of parole for 10 years) last year for beating Kargus to death.

The Ontario Court of Appeal has recently reversed an earlier decision made by Justice A.K. Mitchell of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. At that time, charges against the two guards were dismissed as a result of too much time having passed since they were charged.

LOWER COURT DECISION

At the time of Kargus’ beating and subsequent death, Lonsbary and Jurkus were both employed by the Ministry of Correctional Services at EMDC and on duty.

Following a four month investigation by police, the two men were arrested and charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life to Kargus thereby endangering his life contrary to section 215(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

In February, 2017, Lonsbary and Jurkus brought an application before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice arguing that their constitutional rights had been infringed due to the delay in bringing their case to trial.

A three week jury trial was scheduled to commence on May 8, 2017. The guards submitted that the delay from arrest to the expected completion date of trial would be 1,178 days or 39.3 months. They attributed the delay to the Crown prosecutor and the court.

Applying the formula for delay as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) in the R. v. Jordan (“Jordan”) decision, the lower Court found that the accuseds’ right to be tried within a reasonable period of time was breached. The Court stayed the charges against Lonsbary and Jurkus as the case against them had surpassed the 30-month time limit for trials as set out in the Jordan decision.

WHY IS THE JORDAN DECISION RELEVANT TO THIS CASE?

We have previously blogged about access to justice issues and, more specifically, the commonly criticized length of time it takes for a case to get to trial. The SCC in 2016 set strict time limits for the completion of criminal cases, where there are no exceptional circumstances.

The SCC released its decision in R. v. Jordan on July 8, 2016. In this case, the accused had faced several delays while awaiting his preliminary inquiry and trial. Jordan was eventually convicted of five drug-related offences after 49.5 months. At the beginning of his trial, Jordan brought an application requesting a stay of proceedings due to his constitutional rights being infringed by an unreasonable delay. His application was dismissed. Jordan’s appeal to the Supreme Court of British Columbia was also dismissed.

Jordan proceeded to appeal to the SCC. His appeal was granted, his convictions were set aside and the proceedings were stayed. In this decision, the SCC clearly set out a formula to calculate the amount of time between the initial charge and the actual or anticipated end of trial. The SCC set a ceiling for unreasonable delays at 18 months for cases tried in provincial courts and 30 months for cases to be tried in provincial and superior courts after a preliminary inquiry, except under exceptional circumstances that were reasonably unforeseen or unavoidable.

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL

Crown prosecutors appealed the lower court decision to stay proceedings against Lonsbary and Jurkus to the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”). The Crown argued that the lower court Judge made errors in applying the time frame rules.

According to Justice Fairburn, writing on behalf of the ONCA, delays that were caused by the defence or by “exceptional circumstances” (which can include specific incidents or the general complexity of the case) do not count toward the 30-month ceiling for criminal proceedings.

In conclusion, the ONCA found that there was “no unreasonable delay” and ordered Lonsbary and Jurkus to stand trial.

The two jail guards have the right to appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling. We will continue to follow this case and report on any developments as they take place in this blog.

If you have been charged with a criminal offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience. We are available when you need us most.

Ontario Proclaims Police Record Checks Reform Act

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

On December 1, 2015, the province of Ontario passed the Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 (“PRCRA”), which is intended to uphold public safety in conjunction with respecting privacy and removing barriers that individuals may face when inappropriate information is disclosed in police record checks. The Act will come into effect on November 1, 2018.

The legislation will limit police disclosure of “non-conviction records”, allegations found in police computers that were never proven and 911 mental health calls that police attended.

This legislation was drafted in response to the Toronto Star’s “Presumed Guilty Investigation” in 2014 that exposed that tens of thousands of Canadians have records in police databases despite never having been convicted of a crime. The investigation found that the disclosure of these records has damaged careers, squashed ambitions and limited international travel.

According to research from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, one in three Canadians have some form of non-conviction information found on police computers. Police record checks disproportionately affect people who have more contact with the police, such as those individuals living in poverty or those with mental health or developmental disabilities.

Marie-France Lalonde, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, commented on the new legislation:

People in Ontario must not lose out on opportunities because of an inappropriate disclosure of non-criminal information. It is also vitally important that we have an up-to-date, rigorous record checks process that ensures that employers have access to appropriate information. …Once in force, this legislation will bring down barriers to opportunity and will help people across Ontario become more involved in their community.

WHAT IS A POLICE RECORD?

Police records originate from interactions with local police service related to both criminal and non-criminal matters. These interactions may include:

An individual providing their name through informal contact with a police officer;
An individual calling 911 or was present when the police officers responded to the call;
An individual calling 911 for themselves or someone they know was experiencing a mental health crisis;
An individual was involved in a police investigation as a witness, victim or suspect;
An individual was arrested;
An individual was charged with a criminal offence, but was not convicted;
An individual was found guilty of a criminal offence; or
An individual was convicted of a criminal offence.

WHAT IS A POLICE RECORD CHECK?

A police record check occurs when a search is performed in police databases regarding a particular individual. This “check” can be prompted to evaluate the suitability of an individual for a particular purpose, such as employment at a specific job, volunteer work, application for educational programs, adoption, immigration, or foreign travel.

As it stands today, information searched as part of a police record check can range from convictions to findings of guilty of non-convictions (i.e. an offender is found guilty of a particular offence, but made without conviction) and non-criminal information (i.e. when a person has an interaction with police, but is not charged).

WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF POLICE RECORD CHECKS?

There are three types of police record checks that are clearly defined in the PRCRA.

They are as follows:

Criminal Record Checks;
Criminal Record and Judicial Matter Checks; and
Vulnerable Sector Checks.

A Criminal Records Check is a search of the RCMP databases and is usually required for bylaw licences, employment or immigration purposes. This type of screening will include information regarding criminal convictions and findings of guilt under the Youth Criminal Justice Act within the applicable disclosure period.

A Criminal Record and Judicial Matter Check is the most comprehensive type of police screening. This check includes information regarding convictions, outstanding warrants, charges and judicial orders available from a local police agency’s records. This screening is intended for applicants seeking volunteer or employment from organizations that require a criminal record check, but it is not intended for those seeking to work or volunteer with vulnerable persons.

A Vulnerable Sector Check screens individuals who are pursuing employment or volunteer opportunities with vulnerable people. A vulnerable person is defined as a person who, because of their age, disability, or other circumstances, are in a position of dependence on others or are at a greater risk than the general population of being harmed by a person in a position of authority or trust. Some of the positions that will require a Vulnerable Sector Check include teachers, social workers, taxi drivers, daycare workers, adoptive parents and sport coaches.

THE JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF ONTARIO REPORT

The John Howard Society of Ontario (“JHS”) is a criminal justice organization working to deliver services to those in conflict with the law and at risk throughout Ontario.

The JHS conducted in-depth surveys and interviews with employers and individuals with police records to empirically capture the negative effects of police records on employment.

The JHS report entitled “The Invisible Burden” concludes that a large number of Canadians have some form of police record, particularly Torontonians. These records are frequently requested by employers, and likely effect employer hiring practices and employment outcomes. Most importantly, police records disproportionately affect racialized, marginalized and other vulnerable populations.

Requiring a police records check is often part of an organization’s policy. According to their research, the JHS found that 60% of employers required police background checks for all new employees.

The JHS report offered various recommendations to balance employer interests and the need for an inclusive approach for people who need to gain employment. The JHS is a strong advocate of the new PRCRA as a means to standardize police records checks across the province.

If you have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.

Study Finds Steep Rise in Opioid-Related Deaths in Ontario

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Canada is confronting a national opioid crisis. The increasing number of overdoses and deaths caused by opioids is causing a national public health disaster. In fact, in Ontario the overall rate of opioid-related deaths nearly tripled from 2000 to 2015.

A new study by researchers at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto reviewed all deaths in Ontario in which prescribed or illegal opioids were found to be a contributing factor between 2000 to 2015. The study found that there were 7,719 opioid-related deaths during that time period.

In Ontario, researchers found that one out of every six deaths among young adults (aged 25 to 34) was related to opioids in 2015. Research also found that one of nine deaths among those aged 15 to 24 was related to opioids (nearly double that of 2010).

Lead author and scientist, Dr. Tara Gomes, reports that young people need more information about the dangers of illicit drug use and education on how to reach out for help. She also suggested that it is time to be more tolerant to providing access to naloxone (the overdose-reversing drug) in locations where young people can access it (i.e. high schools, universities and music festivals).

Regarding the opioid crisis in Ontario, Dr. Gomes stated:

It is striking to see that despite the efforts put into harm reduction, proper prescribing practices, and education around opioid use, the number of opioid-related deaths continues to rise. The other alarming fact is how this crisis is increasingly impacting our youth and young adults.

Dr. Gomes’ research revealed that a total of 29,410 years of potential life were lost prematurely due to opioid-related causes in 2015, which exceeds the years of life lost prematurely annually from pneumonia, HIV/AIDs and influenza.

Recently, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke in the city of Hamilton, a city which saw 70 opioid-related deaths between January and October in 2017, and declared that situations like theirs were a top priority for his government. The city of Hamilton’s opioid-death rate during 2017 was 78% higher than the provincial rate.

In addressing the opioid crisis, Prime Minister Trudeau stated:

We know that we have to address this. This is getting to be more and more of a problem. We have always put this at the top of our preoccupations as we deal with this public health crisis here in Hamilton and right across the country.

WHAT ARE OPIOIDS?

Opioids are drugs with pain relieving properties that are used primarily to treat pain. Opioids can be purchased at the pharmacy to treat minor aches and pains or prescribed by a doctor to relieve medium to severe pain.

Opioids can produce euphoria, or a high feeling, which leads them to be used improperly. The following are examples of opioids that can be prescribed medications:

Codeine;
Fentanyl;
Morphine;
Oxycodone;
Hydromorphone; and,
Medical heroin.

Dependency, substance use disorder and overdose are serious side effects and risks of using opioids. They have the potential for problematic use because they produce a “high” feeling.

Opioids should only be taken as prescribed, never be used by someone for whom it was not prescribed and never be taken with alcohol or other medication (except as prescribed).

Individuals prescribed with opioids are advised never to share their medication, and are cautioned to store their medication in a safe and secure place and out of reach from children and teenagers. Any unused opioid medication should be returned to a pharmacy for safe disposal to prevent the possibility of illegal use and protect the environment from contamination.

HOW IS THE GOVERNMENT RESPONDING TO THE OPIOID CRISIS?

The Canadian government has reserved $231.4 million to respond to the opioid crisis in Canada, with monies dedicated to strategies such as public health campaigns, data tracking and new equipment and tools to allow border agents to better detect dangerous opioids before they enter Canada.

The Ontario government guaranteed it will spend more than $222 million over three years to address the opioid issue. The money will be used in the following manner:

To support health care providers on appropriate pain management and opioid prescribing;
To increase addictions treatment in primary care;
To add more front line harm reduction outreach workers in communities across the province;
For specialized support for indigenous communities and developmentally appropriate care for youth.

Furthermore, Ontario is the first province to provide access to Narcan nasal spray in Ontario pharmacies, free of charge, as part of its Ontario Naloxone Program for Pharmacies. This nasal spray is the only needle-free formulation of naloxone for the emergency treatment of a known or suspected opioid overdose. It does not require assembly or any specialized medical training.

Ontario has also announced that more than 30 communities will receive new or enhanced Rapid Access Addiction Medicine (“RAAM”) clinics. There are currently seven community clinics of this kind, which allow patients to receive medical assisted therapy for their addiction and are then referred to healthcare professionals to begin recovery treatment. Kate Hardy, the manager of the RAAM pilot project in Ontario, stated:

Unlike traditional treatment programs there are no wait times, scheduled appointments, or complicated intake assessments. … RAAM clinics are outpatient to allow patients to continue with their work and family responsibilities, and the service providers are non-judgemental.

As both the federal and provincial governments continue in their efforts to tackle the opioid crisis in Canada, Affleck & Barrison LLP will continue to provide updates through this blog.

If you are facing a drug related charge or have any questions regarding your legal rights, contact Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947. We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

THE BLOG