Lawyer Convicted of Murder Granted Bail Pending Appeal

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Demitry Papasotiriou-Lanteigne (“Papasotiriou”) and his lover, Michael Ivezic (“Ivezic”), were found guilty of first degree murder in the death of Allan Lanteigne (“Lanteigne”) last June following a lengthy trial. Both were sentenced to life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 25 years.

It was alleged that the Papasotiriou and Ivezic were having an affair and conspired to kill Papasotiriou’s spouse in order to access the victim’s $2 million life insurance policy. We previously blogged about this case on June 7, 2018.

Papasotiriou is appealing his conviction and alleges that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable because it was based on circumstantial evidence. The Court of Appeal has recently granted Papasotiriou bail pending his appeal.

PAPASOTIRIOU’S BAIL HISTORY

Papasotiriou was born in Greece and came to Canada at the age of 11 after his parents split up. As a young man, he attended university and law school, and was called to the Ontario Bar. He is currently 38 years old.

Papasotiriou left Canada in 2010 to live in Greece. Ivezic followed Papasotiriou to Greece and lived with him for six months in 2010, prior to returning to Canada in January of 2011. Lanteigne was killed on March 3, 2011. Ivezic returned to Greece on May 14, 2011 to live with Papasotiriou.

Papasotirou returned to Canada on November 1, 2012 to participate in litigation regarding the proceeds of his deceased spouse’s insurance policy. He was arrested the next day.

Papasotirou applied for bail in August 2013, but was denied. He re-applied in November 2013 and provided an improved plan of release to the Court. He was again denied.

On September 11, 2014, Papasotirou was discharged following a preliminary inquiry. However, the Crown immediately launched a certiorari application (a formal request to a court challenging a legal decision alleging that the decision has been irregular or there has been an error of law) and a direct indictment was ordered on October 28, 2014, at which point Papasotirou was arrested.

Papasotirou again applied for bail, which was granted. He was released on a $400,000 recognizance with his mother, sister, and stepfather acting as sureties (person who promises to a judge to supervise an accused person while they are out on bail and pledges an amount of money). He remained out on bail for 3 ½ years with no compliance issues.

At the Court of Appeal, counsel for Papasotiriou proposed a plan for release pending his client’s appeal as follows:

$500,000 recognizance with his mother, stepfather, and stepfather’s mother as sureties;
strict house arrest with very narrow exceptions; and
GPS ankle bracelet to be monitored by Recovery Science Corporation (funded by Papasotiriou).

GROUNDS FOR GRANTING BAIL PENDING APPEAL

Pursuant to section 679(3) of the Criminal Code, a judge of the appeal court may order an appellant released pending appeal if he/she has established the following:

That the appeal is not frivolous;
That he/she will surrender into custody in accordance with the terms of any bail order; and
That the detention is not necessary “in the public interest”.

The “not frivolous” test is a very low bar, and in Papasotiriou’s case the Crown did not suggest to the Court that the appeal is frivolous.

The Crown did, however, argue that Papasotiriou has not discharged his onus to surrender into custody given his ties to Greece. The Court of Appeal, rejected the Crown’s argument on this ground, and held that Papasotirou’s compliance with his pre-trial bail order was “flawless” and the use of electronic monitoring will provide an “extra layer of assurance against absconding”.

The Court stated:

I accept that, standing alone, Mr. Papasotiriou’s connections to Greece may give pause for concern. However, any lingering concerns about flight are answered by his history of bail compliance and the strict release plan that is proposed. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the applicant will surrender into custody in accordance with his bail order.

The Court of Appeal outlined that there are two components which make up the third provision (public interest) to consider in granting bail pending an appeal. These include public safety and confidence in the administration of justice. The Supreme Court of Canada addressed the provision regarding the “public interest” in the case of R. v. Oland. The judicial discretion to grant bail pending appeal involves balancing enforceability (taking into account the gravity of the offence, the circumstances surrounding its commission, and the potential length of imprisonment) and reviewability interests (taking into account the strength of the grounds of the appeal).

The Crown conceded that Papasotiriou has proven that he will not commit offences if he is released on bail, thus discharging the onus of the public safety component. However, the Crown did take issue with maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favour of Papasotiriou and held:

The “public interest” requires that I balance all of these factors – the circumstances of the applicant, the nature of the offence, the apparent strength of the appeal, and the time it will take to argue the appeal – to determine whether public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined by Mr. Papasotiriou’s release on bail.

The Court of Appeal maintained that Papasotiriou was not being “turned loose”, but rather carefully monitored in accordance with a stringent release plan (i.e. house arrest, GPS electronic monitoring, and the pledge of $500,000 by his sureties), which is consistent with the proper functioning of the Canadian justice system. Therefore, the Court allowed Papasotiriou’s application and granted him bail pending his appeal.

We will continue to follow any developments in this case as it makes its way through the judicial system and will provide updates in this blog.

In the meantime, to speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer about charges laid against you or your legal rights, please 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.

Extreme Intoxication Can be Used as a Defence for Sexual Assault in Ontario

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

An Ontario judge has ruled that the defence of extreme intoxication in sexual assault cases is once again valid in Ontario.

Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies ruled recently in the case of R. v. Cameron McCaw (“McCaw”) that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which states that self-induced intoxication is not a defence, is unconstitutional as it violates a defendant’s right to be presumed innocent and the right to fundamental justice.

HISTORY OF THE DEFENCE OF EXTREME INTOXICATION

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) ruled in 1994 that drunkenness in its extreme is a defence to sexual assault. This is known as the Daviault decision. The SCC upheld a trial judge’s acquittal of chronic alcoholic, Henri Daviault. Daviault was permitted to use extreme intoxication as a defence against charges that he sexually assaulted a disabled 65-year-old woman. Daviault had consumed up to eight beers and almost an entire large bottle of brandy. The court ruled that depriving Daviault of the drunkenness defence would violate his Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).

Following this ruling, the federal government quickly introduced a law abolishing the defence of self-induced intoxication for crimes involving assault (section 33.1 of the Criminal Code).

33.1 (1) It is not a defence to an offence referred to in subsection (3) that the accused, by reason of self-induced intoxication, lacked the general intent or the voluntariness required to commit the offence, where the accused departed markedly from the standard of care as described in subsection (2).

33.1 (2) For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF R. v. MCCAW?

On July 11, 2015, the alleged victim, referred to as K.B., and her ex-boyfriend (also the roommate of McCaw) attended a pool party from 5 p.m. to 11 p.m. where they consumed a lot of alcohol. K.B., her ex-boyfriend, and another man then met up with McCaw at his apartment . They had a few more drinks and then went outside to the parking lot to smoke. K.B. was so intoxicated that she had to be carried inside the apartment and placed on the couch in the living room where she passed out, fully clothed. McCaw and his two friends went to a nearby bar to continue drinking. McCaw and the ex-boyfriend then returned to the apartment. At some point during the evening, McCaw allegedly consumed marijuana and GBD, the “date-rape drug”.

K.B. alleges that “she awoke to find Mr. McCaw touching her sexually and kissing her and then engaging in sexual intercourse with her.” She initially thought this was her ex-boyfriend, so she did not resist. She then realized that it was McCaw. The victim left the apartment with her ex-boyfriend, leaving McCaw sitting in an arm chair, where he appeared to be sleeping and holding a pair of scissors.

The victim reported the sexual assault to police around 5 a.m. the next morning. Police proceeded to arrest and charge McCaw with sexual assault.

JUSTICE SPIES’ DECISION

Prior to McCaw’s trial, an application was filed by McCaw’s lawyer seeking an order affirming that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code was not in effect as it violated McCaw’s rights under the Charter. Allegedly, McCaw will testify at trial that he had sexual intercourse with A.B., but performed these acts without having intended to do so.

Justice Spies stated that section 33.1 “relieves the Crown of proving the specific mens rea for the charged offence and instead allows for proof of guilt on a different, and arguable lower, standard. It does this even where the state of the accused’s intoxication is so extreme that it reasonably gives rise to a doubt about whether the accused intended the offending action. The prospect of conviction in the face of a reasonable doubt offends both s. 7 and s. 11(d) of the Charter.”

Justice Spies also maintained that section 33.1 relieves the Crown of proving the voluntariness of the act (a mental element of the crime), again infringing an accused’s Charter rights.

In conclusion, Justice Spies allowed McCaw’s application and affirmed that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code is of no force and effect in Ontario. Thus, this decision does not apply directly to any other province in Canada.

Justice Spies provided her ruling on the defence of extreme drunkenness prior to McCaw’s trial. This allows McCaw to use the defence at trial on the charge that he sexually assaulted a woman in a Toronto apartment.

McCaw must prove at trial that it was more likely than not that he was intoxicated to the point of automatism. This is described as a robotic state where he was not aware of his actions.

McCaw’s trial begins on September 12. We will provide updates in this blog as new developments regarding this case become available.

In the meantime, 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.

Judge Strikes Down Mandatory Minimum Sentences for Sex Crimes

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A judge from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice has ruled that mandatory minimum sentences for two sex offences should not apply in the case of Steevenson Joseph (“Joseph”), a 24-year-old first-time offender, who recruited and photographed two underage prostitutes.

After a three-week trial last February, Joseph was convicted of receiving a benefit from the prostitution of a person under the age of 18-years; procuring a person to offer to provide sexual services believing that the person was 18-years or older; knowingly advertising an offer to provide sexual services for consideration; and of making and possessing child pornography. A jury acquitted him of more serious charges, which included sexual assault and two charges related to underage prostitution.

WHAT HAPPENED?

At the time of the crime, Joseph was 21-years-old and was depressed and lonely. He received information from a friend, who was involved in the sex trade, about how lucrative the business was. He then met a girl, identified in court as C.A., who was a college student and who he believed was 18-years-old. He asked her if she wanted to make money in the sex trade. C.A. testified that Joseph did not pressure her to take part in prostitution. She also introduced her best friend, identified as R.D., to meet Joseph as she was also interested in the sex trade.

Joseph took provactive photos of both girls and posted them on a website that features escort service ads. The girls, who were in fact in high school and under the age of 18 at the time, also used Joseph’s apartment to service clients.

Joseph was caught by police through an Ottawa police sting operation after a girl identified as M.M. contacted Joseph through social media interested in becoming involved in the escort business. M.M. was 15 years-old.

All three girls testified at trial that they were never pressured by Joseph, that they lied about their ages, and that they decided freely to join the sex trade.

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

At Joseph’s sentencing hearing, the Crown prosecutor argued that Joseph should be sentenced to a 3-and-a-half year jail term, while the defence requested a suspended sentence (ie. defendant serves a period of probation and receives a criminal record).

Joseph’s lawyer argued that given the facts of the case, the minimum penalties would be a form of “cruel and unusual punishment” and should be struck down as unconstitutional.

Justice Colin McKinnon agreed with Joseph’s lawyer and stated that the minimum penalty prescribed by law “for his offences are grossly disproportionate”. He gave him a suspended sentence, one year probation, and the conditions that he report to a probation officer and not communicate with underage girls identified as C.A., R.D. or M.M.

Justice McKinnon also ordered that Joseph’s DNA be taken pursuant to section 487.051 of the Criminal Code and that he be listed on the Sex Offender Registry for his entire life pursuant to section 490.013(2.1) of the Criminal Code.

Justice McKinnon struck down the mandatory minimums for two offences (receiving a benefit from the prostitution of someone under the age of 18 and making and possessing child porn) as unconstitutional.

This decision took into account that Joseph suffered “irreparable damage” due to inflammatory media reports that were based on exaggerated police assertions regarding human trafficking.

Justice McKinnon stated in his reasons for sentence:

I have sent a number of them to penitentiary, including two child pornographers. In stark contrast to those cases, the facts of this case constitute the least serious conduct witnessed by me in the context of prostitution and child pornography cases. …

An objective view of the facts causes me to conclude that Mr. Joseph has been subjected to sufficient punishment.

WHAT ARE MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCES?

Canada’s criminal law sets out mandatory minimum penalties as the lowest possible punishment an individual can receive if convicted of a criminal offence in Canada. These are often crimes that are both serious and violent offences. There are currently more than 70 of these provisions in the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The majority of offences found in Canada’s Criminal Code do not have mandatory minimum sentences. In these cases, it is the judge’s discretion to deliver an appropriate sentence.

The codification of mandatory minimums was markedly increased by the former Conservative government in an effort to promote its “tough on crime” agenda.

The Supreme Court of Canada and lower courts have already struck down numerous mandatory minimum sentences related to weapons offences, drug offences, and sexual offences against children as unconstitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court of Canada has decided three of these cases (R. v. Nur and R. v. Charles; R. v. Lloyd) and R. v. Morrison is already on the docket to be heard in the near future.

In the current state of criminal law in Canada, millions of dollars are being used to litigate these sentences on a case-by-case basis. This results in inconsistent legal decisions across the country and uncertainty as to which mandatory minimums are valid.

Sentencing in the Joseph case is currently being reviewed by the Crown Law Office in Toronto to determine if the decision will be appealed. We will provide updates in this blog of any developments in this case as they become available.

If you are facing sexual offence charges or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact Durham region criminal defence lawyers Affleck & Barrison LLP. We have a reputation for effective results in defending all types of criminal legal charges. We offer a free initial consultation and a 24-hour phone service. Contact our office online or at 905-404-1047 to speak with one of our experienced criminal defence lawyers today.

Crown Prosecutors Appealing Decision in Toronto Police Breach of Trust Case

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Kyle Upjohn (“Upjohn”), an officer with ten years of experience on the police force, was charged with the offence of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and following a preliminary inquiry he was committed to stand trial. Upjohn successfully brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking to quash the order committing him to stand trial.

A Crown prosecutor is appealing the decision to quash Upjohn’s criminal trial to Ontario’s highest court maintaining that the lower court Judge erred. Milan Rupic, Crown prosecutor, claims that Justice Maureen Forestall erred in failing to consider “the whole of the evidence” when considering Upjohn’s intent.

Rupic contends that Upjohn allegedly refused to help stop a young man commit suicide in High Park and should stand trial as the cop “knowingly avoided a duty of vital importance”.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On February 2, 2016, a concerned citizen reported to Upjohn, who was parked in his marked police vehicle in High Park, that a young man was preparing to hang himself in the park. Instead of coming to the aid of Alexandre Boucher (“Boucher”), Upjohn allegedly falsely claimed he was on another call and told the man to dial 911 and then drove away.

Subsequently, Upjohn was dispatched to attend to the park where Boucher, a 19-year-old, was later pronounced dead.

Initially, Upjohn was charged with criminal negligence causing death and failing to provide the necessities of life. These charges were withdrawn and Upjohn was charged with breach of trust by a public officer.

THE LOWER COURT DECISION

On application to the Superior Court of Justice, Upjohn’s lawyer argued that a breach of trust case required evidence that the accused had a dishonest or corrupt ulterior purpose for avoiding the call, and that there was no such evidence of this nature. Justice Forestell agreed with this position and quashed Upjohn’s committal to stand trial.

THE ARGUMENTS ON APPEAL

The Crown prosecutor has filed an appeal at the Ontario Court of Appeal. The Crown argues that Justice Forestell erred in her decision to quash the trial by failing to consider the “whole of the evidence” in terms of Upjohn’s intent.

The Crown argues that the evidence supports the inference that Upjohn “knowingly avoided a duty of vital importance by means of a deceit”. Furthermore, the evidence demonstrates that in avoiding his public duty, Upjohn was untrustworthy and the breach of his duty was not for the public good.

The Crown stated:

This was not an innocent mistake. Upjohn masked his failure to act with dishonesty – by lying about being “on a call”. The lie suggests that Upjohn knew what he was doing wrong, that he was intentionally using his office for a purpose other than the public good.

The appeal in this case is scheduled to be heard in November, 2018.

WHAT IS BREACH OF TRUST?

A charge of breach of trust by a public officer is laid when an official is accused of violating the standard of conduct and responsibility demanded by his/her position.

Section 122 of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

Every official who, in connection with the duties of his office, commits fraud or a breach of trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, whether or not the fraud or breach of trust would be an offence if it were committed in relation to a private person.

The Supreme Court of Canada set out the elements of the offence of breach of trust by a public officer in R. v. Boulanger:

The accused is an official;
The accused was acting in connection with the duties of his office;
The accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him by the nature of the office;
The conduct of the accused represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust; and
The accused acted with the intention to use his public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, for a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.

UPJOHN’S CURRENT STATUS

Currently, Upjohn remains suspended with pay from the Toronto Police Service since May 2016.

Upjohn is also accused of three counts of professional misconduct under Ontario’s Police Services Act, including neglect of duty and acting in a disorderly manner.

Under this Act, disciplinary hearings are conducted by police services. A hearing officer must decide whether the allegations of misconduct have been proven on clear and convincing evidence. If an officer is found guilty of misconduct, appropriate penalties may be imposed, including:

a reprimand;
a direction to undergo specific counselling, treatment or training;
a direction to participate in a specified program or activity;
forfeiture of pay or time off;
suspension without pay;
demotion; or
dismissal.

We will report in this blog any developments in this case as they occur, including the decision on appeal.

In the meantime, 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.

Plans to Appeal to the Supreme Court as Seizure of Blood by Police in Dispute

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

On July 25, 2018, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld Christie Ann Culotta’s (“Culotta”) convictions on two counts of operating a vessel causing bodily harm while having a blood-alcohol content over the legal limit. This was a split decision, with a two-judge majority and Justice Gladys Pardu dissenting.

It has been reported that Culotta intends to take her case to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the legality of taking extra blood samples from a suspected impaired boater in a hospital for use by the police.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On August 1, 2013 at approximately 2am, Culotta was driving a boat back to her family cottage from a party at a yacht club on Muskoka Lake. It was raining heavily and visibility was poor. There were four other young women on board.

Culotta was driving the boat at a “relatively high speed, fast enough that the hull planed above the water”. She then crashed into a rocky island, leaving a white V-shaped mark on the rocks above the waterline.

Three of the passengers were ejected from the boat, one landing on the island and two in the water. All three passenger were injured, fortunately there were no fatalities.

Culotta was not seriously injured and spoke with the investigating officer after the boaters were rescued. Ambulances rushed the two seriously injured victims to the hospital, while Culotta and two others with minor injuries were treated by ambulance.

An Ontario Provincial Police officer smelled alcohol in the ambulance and asked Culotta if she had been drinking. She admitted that she had a vodka and tonic and one or two additional drinks at dinner. The officer observed Culotta’s watery eyes and a slight slurring in her speech, but he was unsure whether this was from intoxication, crying, rain, or facial injuries.

Culotta was arrested a little more than an hour after the accident, but the officer did not immediately caution her about her right to silence in order to avoid interference with her medical care. She was cautioned half an hour later at the hospital. The officer tried to contact Culotta’s father in order for her to retain a lawyer, but to no avail.

In hospital, doctors took blood tests for medical purposes, including to test her blood alcohol. At trial, it became apparent that the officer told the lab technician that he wanted to seal some of the blood for investigative purposes. The technician drew more blood than was medically required, without Culotta’s consent. Two of the six vials of blood were sealed by the OPP officer and placed on a shelf in the laboratory refrigerator that was marked “for police use”. The blood was tested for alcohol content after a warrant was granted.

Blood tests revealed 107 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood, which is over the legal limit of 80.

The trial judge excluded the blood sample evidence, but admitted Culotta’s hospital records, which showed a blood alcohol level over the legal limit. The trial judge also found that Culotta’s statements to the police were found to be voluntary.

Culotta was convicted in a judge alone trial.

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL

At the Court of Appeal, Culotta contested the trial judge’s rulings with respect to the admissibility of evidence that she maintains were obtained in violation of her rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (“Charter”).

The two judge majority agreed with the trial judge in finding that Culotta’s statements to the police were voluntary and that her hospital records were properly obtained with a search warrant. Justice V.B. Nordheimer, writing on behalf of the majority, wrote:

Whether the lab technician did or did not take other blood samples for the police, some blood would have been taken from the appellant, and it would have been tested for blood-alcohol concentration regardless. Consequently, the Charter infringement regarding the two vials of blood is independent of the other blood samples taken. The exclusion of one does not undermine the admissibility and evidentiary value of the other.

JUSTICE PARDU’S DISSENTING OPINION

Justice Pardu, in her dissenting opinion at the Court of Appeal, was of the opinion that the Charter breaches were serious grounds to quash the convictions and order a new trial.

Justice Pardu found that Culotta’s hospital records, which included an analysis of her blood, should be excluded. She was especially concerned that the hospital had a tray in its refrigerator specifically reserved for police blood samples and a special form for when blood is taken at the request of police.

Justice Pardu, in her dissenting opinion, wrote:

Co-opting extra blood samples was a serious breach by police. There are statutory regimes prescribed for the taking of breath or blood samples where impaired driving offences are suspected. These regimes must be well known to police. For police to sidestep these procedures by inserting themselves into an accused person’s medical care is a grave misstep.

Calutta’s lawyers have disclosed their intention to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. Given that the Court of Appeal was a split decision, Calutta can automatically appeal the decision without seeking leave from the Court.

We will continue to follow any developments in this case as it proceeds to the Supreme Court of Canada in this blog. In the meantime, if you have been charged with an impaired driving 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 take all steps necessary to protect your best interests. We maintain a 24-hour emergency service line and offer free confidential consultation to all prospective clients.

Canada Has Approved Roadside Saliva Tests

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Canada’s Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould has approved roadside swab tests as a new approach to attack drug use and driving. This will be the first test of its kind in Canada. Police officers will instantly be able to check saliva for traces of THS (the psychoactive component in marijuana).

Currently, there is no accurate way for police officers to assess if an individual is driving under the influence while using cannabis products. Police officers use sobriety tests to check impairments of drivers they suspect are high. In the very near future, Canadian police will have a new tool to use to accurately confirm intoxication – the cannabis roadside saliva drug test.

The roadside saliva test is part of Canada’s revamp to its impaired driving laws. This test is part of Bill C-46, legislation that we have previously blogged about, which will come into force on October 17, 2018.

Wilson-Raybould approved the saliva test device after an independent panel of traffic safety experts and toxicologists evaluated and critiqued the test’s effectiveness.

HOW DOES THE SALIVA TEST WORK?

The saliva testing device will be able to immediately detect traces of cocaine and THC use within the last six hours. Police officers will use a small and portable machine to swab a driver’s mouth and receive results in real time. This testing device will provide a more accurate and reliable upgrade to the current field sobriety tests used by police officers (i.e. walking a straight line or standing on one foot). A failed test gives police reasonable grounds to bring a driver in for further testing, including a blood test or an examination by a drug recognition expert.

It has been reported that the government will be investing $81 million over a five-year period to buy screening devices and provide officers with comprehensive training on drug-impaired driving.

The federal government is considering using the Draeger DrugTest 5000. This is a German-made mobile drug screening system that uses oral fluid to detect seven types of commonly used drugs. This device has already been approved for use in the United Kingdom and Germany.

This particular device may require modifications in order to operate in Canada’s tough winter climate. Early tests of this device in Northwest Territories and Saskatchewan found that “there were some temperature-related issues that arose when the devices were used in extremely cold temperatures”.

LEGAL CHALLENGES TO ROADSIDE SALIVA DRUG TEST RESULTS

Although the Canadian government is confident in the validity of the roadside saliva tests, the results of these tests will likely face multiple legal challenges from defence lawyers.

Bill C-46 allows the police to charge a driver with drug-impaired driving based solely on the presence of THC. There is no requirement for officers to prove actual impairment. However, unlike alcohol, the presence of THC does not always indicate intoxication.

We can expect that in the future many court cases will shed light on how individual tolerance of THC affects a person’s motor skills and how long cannabis can stay in an individual’s body.

BILL C-46 DRUG-IMPAIRED DRIVING

At the present time, the federal government has released a draft of its planned drug concentration levels and associated offences.

Three new offences for drug-impaired driving have been created under the drafted legislation of Bill C-46:

Drivers who have a blood drug concentration of more than two nanograms of THC (per milliliter of blood) but less than five nanograms could be found guilty of impaired driving under the proposed summary offence, which has a maximum fine of $1,000;
Drivers who have a blood drug concentration of more than five nanograms of THC in their blood could be found guilty of impaired driving similar to 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;
Drivers who have a mixture of a THC level above 2.5 nanograms of THC in their blood and a blood alcohol concentration above 50 mg per 100 mL would be subject to the same penalties as above.

In addition, each province has the right to implement their own drug-impaired driving rules.

TIPS TO AVOID IMPAIRED DRIVING

Here are a few simple tips to avoid driving while you are impaired by drugs and/or alcohol:

Always have a plan to get home safely (a designated driver, use public transportation, call a friend or family member, call a taxi or ride share, or stay overnight);
Ask your doctor about side effects that may occur when using prescription medication;
Read the information on the package of your prescription or over-the-counter medication;
Ask your doctor or pharmacist about how a prescription drug can affect you when using alcohol or drugs of any nature; and
Remember that fatigue and stress will also affect your ability to drive safely.

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

Acquittal for Man Convicted in Violent Home Invasion

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The Ontario Court of Appeal acquitted Dino Phillips (“Phillips”) of 19 convictions, which included possession of a firearm, uttering death threats, kidnapping, unlawful confinement, robbery, breaking and entering, mischief, and pointing a firearm.

Phillips’ case took almost six years to get through the courts. It was one of the longest ever at the London courthouse.

He was sentenced in October, 2015 to eight years in prison after a jury found him guilty of 19 charges stemming from a home invasion and armed robbery in 2009. The question at the trial was whether Phillips was one of the three men involved in the crimes.

Phillips was identified from a photo lineup by one of the participants of the crimes. However, there was no physical or forensic evidence linking Phillips to the crimes.

The Ontario Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in her instructions on how the jury should treat the identification evidence, particularly the in-dock identification and the photo lineup evidence.

As the Court of Appeal found that the verdict was unreasonable in that no reasonable jury could convict Phillips on the evidence in the case, a new trial was not ordered and Phillips was acquitted of all charges.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On May 8, 2009, Shawn George (“George”), Floyd Deleary (“Deleary”), and an unidentified man set out to rob George’s drug dealer at his apartment in London, Ontario.

At the time of the intrusion, the dealer’s girlfriend, her infant daughter, and sister were also at the dealer’s apartment. Deleary held a gun to the girlfriend’s head and the other two men tied up the dealer and girlfriend. The girlfriend’s sister was forced to look for money. The intruders were angered by the amount of money that was in the apartment and threatened to kill all of its occupants.

George and Deleary did not cover their faces and referred to each other by their first names. The third intruder was described as a “black man” who had his face covered and threatened to kill anyone who looked at him.

Unsatisfied with the amount of money in the dealer’s home, the “black man” and Deleary stole the girlfriend’s car and forced their way into the home of the drug dealer’s parents. They proceeded to tie up the occupants of the home and rob them at gunpoint. George was driving another vehicle with the intention of meeting up with the robbers, but drove off when he thought he saw an undercover police car.

After they heard sirens, the “black man” jumped out of the bedroom window and ran away.

Deleary was later arrested in the stolen car, while George was not arrested until February 23, 2010.

Phillips was arrested shortly thereafter following his identification by George in a photo lineup.

PHOTO LINEUP IDENTIFICATION

Following his arrest, George told police that he only knew the “black man” as “Virus”, but would be able to identify him.

Detective Constable Ellyatt prepared a photo lineup of twelve different men. Phillips was the fifth in the lineup. George identified Phillips as the man he knew as Virus.

The police did not perform a photo lineup for any of the other witnesses.

The Court of Appeal held that the photo lineup was so problematic as to render George’s identification of Phillips as worthless. Further, the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury regarding the nature of identification problems, thus causing the trial to be unfair.

IN-DOCK IDENTIFICATION

During the preliminary inquiry (held to determine if there is enough evidence for an individual to be tried on their charges), witnesses were asked to identify who the “black man” was. Phillips was the only black man in the courtroom at the time of the preliminary inquiry.

Several witnesses pointed to Phillips in the courtroom. However, the drug dealer and the girlfriend’s sister could not identify the “black man”.

One witness testified that Phillips looked similar to the “black man”.

The trial judge instructed the jury to be cautious when relying on eyewitness testimony and alerted them to the possibility of mistakes.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge’s failure to instruct the jury concerning the dangers of in-dock identification was an error that undermined the fairness of the trial. The Court described the circumstances involving the in-dock identification as “egregious”. The victims had not been shown a photo lineup as it “never occurred” to the police to administer one and they only had one black man to choose from in the courtroom (the black man who had been charged with the crimes). The Court described this as highly prejudicial.

UNREASONABLE VERDICT

The question before the Court of Appeal was “whether, considering the evidence as a whole, the verdict was one that a properly instructed jury, acting judicially, could reasonably have rendered”.

Given that George’s pre-trial identification of Phillips was severely flawed, there was no independent confirmatory evidence supporting his identification, and there was no forensic evidence tying Phillips to the crimes, the Court of Appeal was “satisfied that no reasonable jury could have convicted the appellant [Phillips] on the evidence in this case, even assuming the jury had been charged properly”.

Therefore, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions, and entered acquittals on all charges.

To speak with an experienced criminal defence lawyer about charges laid against you or your legal rights, call Affleck & Barrison LLP at 905-404-1947 or contact us online. We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24/7.

Gun Violence Increasing in Toronto

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The deadly rampage in Toronto last Sunday is just another tragedy in the growing list of fatal shootings in our city. In the wake of a violent summer and in an effort to reduce gun violence in Toronto, Police Chief Mark Saunders (“Saunders”) and Mayor John Tory announced plans to add 200 frontline officers to the night shift.

The additional police officers will be on the job between 7 p.m. and 3 a.m. in designated areas of the city that are in need of the added police presence. Officers will be focusing on areas where police have seen gun and gang activity. The increased police presence will last for an eight week period, at which point Toronto police will re-evaluate their needs.

Saunders clarified that neighbourhoods will not be inundated with police,

It’s about being focused and strategic in our deployment. This is not about turning communities upside down. That will never be the intention.

According to Toronto police, there have been 228 shootings in Toronto and 29 people killed in 2018. In comparison to 2017, at the same time of year there were 188 shootings and only 17 deaths. This is a 53% increase in shooting deaths since 2017. The increase has largely been blamed on gang activity.

The most recent tragic event involving gun violence in Toronto occurred on July 23, 2018 after 10:00 p.m. in Toronto’s Greektown neighbourhood. A 29-year-old gunman opened fire resulting in two innocent deaths and thirteen wounded individuals.

Following this recent rampage, Mayor Tory confessed that guns are too accessible in Toronto and stated:

We have a gun problem in that guns are readily available to too many people. The police are doing their best, but they’re operating under extraordinarily difficult circumstances to deal with these guns.

PLANS TO TACKLE GUN VIOLENCE IN TORONTO

Mayor Tory announced a $15-million plan to confront gun crime in Toronto. These funds are coming from all three levels of government. Some of this money will be allocated to 16 community initiatives aimed at reducing gun violence and preventing youth from joining gangs. These initiatives include new employment opportunities, job fairs in marginalized communities, establishing a children’s mental health recovery team, and the expansion of existing programs. Some of the money will be allocated to YouthWorx, which is a program by Toronto Community Housing that employs young people in various fields.

Toronto is also in the process of applying for federal funding available to municipalities through the National Crime Prevention Strategy.

SHOOTINGS IN TORONTO THIS SUMMER

The following is a list of some of the shootings that have occurred in the Greater Toronto Area since the beginning of summer 2018:

June 24: Two men shot and killed inside a home in Etobicoke;
June 24: Drive-by shooting in North York;
June 25: Man shot and killed inside an apartment building in the early morning in Toronto;
June 28: Man arrived at a hospital in Toronto with a gunshot wound to his foot;
June 29: Pedestrian and cyclist shot in Moss Park neighbourhood;
June 30: Two men dead and another woman injured during a daylight shooting in Toronto’s Entertainment District;
June 30: Teenage boy collapsed from a gunshot wound behind a church in the Downsview area;
July 1: Man shot and killed and three others injured in a shooting in Kensington Market;
July 3: Man suffered bullet wound to the hip in a drive-by shooting in the Fashion District;
July 8: Man shot and killed in parking lot in North York, believed to be a targeted attack;
July 9: Man killed in shooting in Black Creek neighbourhood;
July 9: Man shot in the Annex neighbourhood;
July 22: Woman and young girl shot and killed and 13 others injured on the Danforth.

FEDERAL REACTION TO TORONTO’S GUN VIOLENCE

Former Toronto police chief and current Minister of Border Security and Organized Crime Reduction, Bill Blair, reports that he has been in touch with Major Tory and Saunders to discuss the latest deadly shooting in Toronto and how Ottawa can support the city’s efforts to put an end to the increasing incidence of gun violence. Blair will be working closely with Public Safety Minister, Ralph Goodale.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Premier Doug Ford have also had discussions following the latest shooting in Toronto about how the two levels of government can work together.

Premier Ford has also confirmed that all three levels of government will be working together to tackle the gun violence sweeping through Toronto. He stated:

As Premier, my commitment to you is that I will do everything in my power to keep our neighbourhoods safe. We will make sure our police have the tools and resources they need to do their jobs, and we will work with our municipal and federal counterparts to identify, apprehend and convict those who commit, or plan to commit violence.

TORONTO REQUESTS NEW TECHNOLOGY TO RESTRICT GUNS

Mere days before the horrific shooting spree, Toronto’s police services board had requested more security cameras and new technology to be installed in parts of the city to help curb gun violence. The board has requested more than double the number of closed circuit police cameras in public places where gang activity and gun violence are known to take place. This would bring the total number of police cameras to approximately 80.

The board is also requesting that the city implement “ShotSpotter” technology that uses microphones to detect and locate gunfire, and automatically informs the police.

It will cost $4-million over the next two years to implement both of these measures. This will likely be covered by the crime prevention funding from both the federal and provincial governments.

If you have been charged with a weapons offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the experienced Oshawa defence 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.

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.

THE BLOG