Appeal

Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies Entrapment by Police in Dial-a-Dope Cases

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Canada’s highest court recently released its written decision in a pair of related cases regarding the issue of entrapment.  Javid Ahmad (“Ahmad”) and Landon Williams (“Williams”) were each charged with drug offences after police purchased cocaine from them. 

The Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that police must form a reasonable suspicion that the individual on the phone is dealing drugs before asking to buy drugs.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Toronto police responded to tips to investigate alleged dial-a-dope schemes.  This type of scheme involves a seller communicating with their customers over cell phones and arranging to purchase drugs at an agreed upon location.  In each case, officers called a particular phone number and following a brief conversation requested drugs and arranged a meeting spot to complete the transaction. 

Ahmad and Williams were each arrested and charged with drug-related offences.  Both accused argued at trial that their proceedings should be stayed on the basis of entrapment.

In the case of Ahmad, the police received a tip that “Romeo” was selling drugs over the phone.  Following a short conversation with “Romeo”, a deal was struck to sell the officer cocaine and a location was agreed upon.  The officer met “Romeo” (Ahmad) in person to sell him the cocaine, at which time he was arrested and searched.  At Ahmad’s trial, he was convicted and the judge concluded that he was not entrapped as police had not offered him an opportunity to traffic drugs until their tip had been corroborated during the course of the phone conversation. 

In the case of Williams, police received a tip that “Jay” was selling cocaine.  The officer called “Jay” and arranged a meeting time and place to buy crack cocaine.  The drug deal took place.  Eleven days later, another drug deal was arranged.  A month later, the police arrested Williams.  At Williams’ trial, the judge concluded that he was entrapped because the officer who contacted him provided him with the option to sell drugs before forming a reasonable suspicion that he was drug trafficking.  Thus resulting in a stay of the drug-related charges.

Both Ahmad’s and Williams’ cases were heard together on appeal.  The majority of the Court of Appeal held that where reasonable suspicion relates to the phone number, the police can provide opportunities to commit a crime even if there is no reasonable suspicion about the person who answers the phone.  Therefore, at their appeals both Ahmad and Williams were convicted of drug offences.

WHAT IS ENTRAPMENT?

Entrapment takes place when the police encourage an individual to commit a crime or provide an individual with the opportunity to commit a crime without having a reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in that particular criminal activity. 

The Supreme Court of Canada set out two categories for the defence of entrapment in the case of R. v. Mack

  1. The police may present an opportunity to commit a crime only without acting upon a reasonable suspicion that either a specific person is engaged in criminal activity or people are carrying out criminal activity at a specific location;
  2. The police, while having a reasonable suspicion, go beyond providing an opportunity and induce the commission of an offence.

WHAT DID THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECIDE?

On appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, both Ahmad and Williams argued that the police did not have the required reasonable suspicion that either individual was involved in criminal activity before asking them over the phone to buy drugs.

The majority of the judges of the Supreme Court concluded that Ahmad was not entrapped and that Williams was entrapped by the police.

The court held that police can ask a person during a telephone conversation to commit a crime, but only if there is already reasonable suspicion that the person is involved in criminal activity.  The reasonable suspicion must relate to the specific person committing a crime or a crime occurring in a specific location.  Given the digital world that we live in, a specific location can include a phone number.  Thus, police can have a reasonable suspicion that the phone number is being used for the crime before asking the person who answers the phone to commit a crime.  The court was concerned about the risks to privacy of allowing the location to be expanded to virtual spaces and stated:

…to properly protect these interests, police must have reasonable suspicion over an individual or a well-defined virtual space, like a phone number, before providing an opportunity to commit a crime.

Although in both cases, the police didn’t have reasonable suspicion before calling the phone numbers, the court concluded that the police became reasonably suspicious in Ahmad’s case to suspect he was selling drugs while talking with him on the phone and before asking to buy drugs from him.  In Williams case, the police asked to buy drugs from him prior to having a reasonable suspicion that he was selling drugs during their phone conversation. 

The majority of the court stated:

As state actors, police must respect the rights and freedoms of all Canadians and be accountable to the public they serve and protect. …

At the same time, police require various investigative techniques to enforce the criminal law.  While giving wide latitude to police to investigate crime in the public interest, the law also imposes constraints on certain police methods.

Based upon the specific circumstances in each case, Ahmad’s conviction was upheld and the stay of proceedings for Williams was reinstated.

If you have been charged with a drug-related offence or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  Our skilled criminal defence lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  We offer a free consultation and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Trust our experienced criminal lawyers to handle your defence with diligence, strategy and expertise. 

Supreme Court of Canada Rules Bail Conditions Must Be Knowingly Violated

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In its unanimous decision last week, the Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial for Chaycen Michael Zora (“Zora”), who had been convicted of breaching his bail conditions. 

The highest court in Canada concluded that an individual accused of breaching his/her bail conditions must knowingly or recklessly violate those conditions in order to be found guilty of breaching them.

WHAT HAPPENED?

Zora was charged with several drug offences in British Columbia.  He was released on bail and required to abide by twelve conditions.  These conditions included that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour, report to his bail supervisor, not possess any non-prescribed controlled substances, not possess or have a cell phone, obey a curfew and be present at his front door within five minutes if and when the police or bail supervisor appeared to check on him, amongst other conditions. 

In October 2015, police rang Zora’s doorbell on two occasions and he did not answer.  He was therefore charged with two counts of breaching his curfew and two counts of failing to meet the condition of responding to police at his home during a curfew check.

At his trial, Zora was acquitted of charges of breaching curfew as it could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Zora had been outside of his home after curfew.  However, Zora was fined $920 and found guilty of two counts of failing to appear at the door in response to curfew compliance checks.

Zora argued that he did not hear the doorbell as it was difficult to hear it from where he slept.  Furthermore, he testified that he was undergoing methadone treatment, which made him very tired, and was in the process of withdrawal from his heroin addiction.

Zora also testified that he changed where he slept in his home and set up an audio-visual system at his front door to help alert him to further police checks, which ensured that he was complying with his conditions of bail. 

Zora unsuccessfully appealed the trial judge’s decision.  He then proceeded to take his appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada

THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Zora appeals his conviction for failing to comply with his bail conditions by not answering the door when police appeared at his residence to ensure that he was complying with his bail conditions.  In failing to do so, Zora had committed the actus reus of the crime (the physical act of the crime).

The Supreme Court of Canada was asked to determine whether Zora had committed the mental element, also known as the mens rea, of the crime, which also must be present, in order to secure a conviction under section 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

It is a criminal offence, under section 145(3) of the Criminal Code, to breach bail.  This crime carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison.  Therefore, an accused may be subject to imprisonment for breaching conditions of their bail even if he/she is not found guilty of any of the original charges. 

In writing on behalf of the Supreme Court, Justice Martin explained what was required to satisfy the mental element of the crime:

I conclude that the Crown is required to prove subjective mens rea and no lesser form of fault will suffice.  Under s.145(3), the Crown must establish that the accused committed the breach knowingly or recklessly.  Nothing in the text or context of s. 145(3) displaces the presumption that Parliament intended to require a subjective mens rea. 

…The realities of the bail system further support Parliament’s intention to require subjective fault to ensure that the individual characteristics of the accused are considered throughout the bail process.

…Not only is this conclusion consistent with the presumption of subjective fault for crimes like s. 145(3), it is supported by its place and purpose in the overall bail system, the serious consequences which flow from its breach, and how the consideration of individual circumstances is the proper focus both for setting conditions and determining the mental element for their breach.

The Supreme Court held that subjective mens rea can be established when the Crown has proven:

  1. The accused had knowledge of the conditions of the bail order, or they were willfully blind to those conditions; and
  2. The accused knowingly (or were willfully blind to the circumstances) failed to act according to their bail conditions despite the knowledge of them; or
  3. The accused recklessly failed to act in accordance with their bail conditions (i.e. perceived an unjustified risk that their conduct would fail to comply with their bail conditions).

In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that subjective fault is required for a conviction under s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code.  The court found that the lower courts erred in law by applying an objective rather than a subjective standard of fault.  The Supreme Court allowed Zora’s appeal, quashed his convictions and ordered a new trial on the two counts of failing to appear at his door. 

If you have been charged with a bail related offence or have any questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  Our skilled criminal defence lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  We offer a free consultation and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Trust our experienced criminal lawyers to handle your defence with diligence, strategy and expertise.

Appeal Court Expunges the Defence of Self-Induced Intoxication

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Last week, amidst great controversy, the Ontario Court of Appeal released its decision in the cases of R. v. Sullivan and R. v. Chan regarding the application of the defence of self-induced intoxication. 

This significant decision declared that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CC”) is unconstitutional and of no force or effect.

SECTION 33.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

Section 33.1 of the CC established that if an accused caused his/her own intoxication and commits a violent offence, he/she cannot claim that he/she was too intoxicated to be found guilty of even general intent offences (i.e. assault and sexual assault).  This applies even if he/she was intoxicated to the point of automatism (the performance of an action unconsciously or involuntarily), even if his/her acts were involuntary or he/she lacked the mental state to commit the violent act.

In its latest decision, the Ontario Court of Appeal determined that this law breached “virtually all the criminal law principles that the law relies upon to protect the morally innocent, including the venerable presumption of innocence”.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE SULLIVAN CASE?

In the case of David Sullivan, the accused over-consumed prescription medication in an attempt to take his own life.  The medication left him in a state of extreme psychosis.  During the psychotic episode, he believed he had captured an alien and proceeded to stab his mother.

At trial, Sullivan was found guilty of the violent offence despite Sullivan’s contention that his intoxication was involuntary as it resulted from a suicide attempt. 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CHAN CASE?

Thomas Chan, a high school student, stabbed and killed his father and severely injured his father’s partner during a psychotic episode after consuming magic mushrooms.  Chan believed he was a deity and that his father was the devil. 

At trial, Chan also attempted to rely upon the defence of non-mental disorder automatism.  Given section 33.1, which prohibits the use of automatism as a defence in cases of violence when an accused’s intoxication was self-inflicted, this defence failed and Chan was convicted.

THE COURT OF APPEAL’S DECISION REGARDING SECTION 33.1 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

The Court of Appeal found that section 33.1 of the CC violated the following sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

  1. The right to life, liberty and security of the person (section 7); and
  2. The right to the presumption of innocence (section 11(d)).

Under Canadian law, if a law violates a Charter right, in certain circumstances it can be justified by the Crown and upheld despite the violations.  In this case, the Appeal Court could not find benefits to the law, and instead found that the law was contrary to the principles of fundamental justice.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal wrote:

Put simply, the deleterious effects of s.33.1 include the contravention of virtually all the criminal law principles that the law relies upon to protect the morally innocent, including the venerable presumption of innocence. …

With very little true gain, Parliament has attempted to cast aside the bedrock of moral fault.

The Court of Appeal held that a person must act voluntarily to commit a crime.  Although lawmakers attempted to help victims attain justice with the introduction of section 33.1 of the CC, the law in actuality violated an accused’s rights by making them responsible for violence they had no control over.  Justices David Paciocco and David Watt wrote:

As for recognizing and promoting the equality, security and dignity of crime victims, it is obvious that those few victims who may see their offenders acquitted without s.33.1 will be poorly served.  They are victims, whether their attacked willed or intended the attack.  However, to convict an attacker of offences for which they do not bear the moral fault required by the Charter to void this outcome, is to replace on injustice for another, and at an intolerable cost to the core principles that animate criminal liability.

The Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for Chan as he was only convicted of offences that included an element of assault and those convictions depended upon section 33.1.  On the other hand, the Court of Appeal acquitted Sullivan of all of his charges.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

The Crown prosecutor has advised that it will be seeking leave to appeal these decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund has strongly expressed its frustration over this Court of Appeal decision and believes that this decision sends a message “that men can avoid accountability for their acts of violence against women and children through intoxication”.

However, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has expressed that the concern that the floodgates have been opened to men arguing the defence of intoxication are unwarranted.  An accused must still prove that he/she was in a state of automatism, not merely drunk.

Cara Zwibel, Director with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, stated:

This is a rarely used provision.  It’s not this widespread, systemic concern.

We will continue to follow the law as it evolves in response to the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decisions and will report any developments in this blog.

In the meantime, if you have any questions regarding charges that have been laid against you or your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1047.  Our skilled criminal lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting their client’s rights.  For your convenience, we offer a 24-hour telephone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice.

Supreme Court Finds Driver Guilty as Risks are Reasonably Foreseeable When Driving Three Times the Speed Limit

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

Earlier this spring, the Supreme Court of Canada determined that a reasonable person should foresee the risk of excessive speeding towards a major intersection and that this behaviour can be a departure from the reasonable standard of care required of drivers in Canada.

The highest court in Canada found that the trial judge in the case of R. v. Chung made two errors of law in a case of dangerous driving causing death.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On November 14, 2015, Ken Chung (“Chung”) drove his vehicle almost three times the speed limit towards a major intersection in a mixed residential-commercial area in Vancouver.  Chung crashed into a left turning vehicle, resulting in the death of the driver at the scene of the accident. 

A dashboard camera video caught 4.9 seconds of the accident showing Chung passing one car on the right and accelerating from 50 km/h to 140km/h before entering the intersection.  Chung was observed almost hitting a Toyota that was making a right turn in front of him and then colliding with the victim’s vehicle at a speed of 119 km/h.

The trial judge concluded that Chung’s speeding through the intersection was objectively dangerous to the public and fulfilled the actus reus (the physical act of the crime) of dangerous driving.  However, there was reasonable doubt as to whether Chung’s conduct met the mens rea (the intention, knowledge or recklessness of the accused) requirement for the crime of dangerous driving.  The test for mens rea in driving cases refers to a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person in similar circumstances.  The trial judge held that the momentariness of Chung’s speeding did not demonstrate criminal fault.

At his trial, Chung was acquitted of dangerous driving causing death under section 249(4) of the Criminal Code (this section has been repealed and replaced with section 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code).  This crime requires two components:

  1. The prohibited conduct:  Operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner resulting in death; and
  2. The required degree of fault:  A marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised while driving in the circumstances when the incident occurred.

On appeal, it was found that the trial judge had erred in law by finding that Chung had lacked the mens rea of the driving offence, and in finding that the momentary acceleration in speed could not satisfy the mens rea component of the crime  Therefore, the acquittal was overturned and a dangerous driving conviction was entered.

Chung appealed the conviction and took his case to the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”).

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA DECISION

The SCC found that the trial judge made two errors of law by applying the wrong legal principle and by failing to apply the correct legal test by not assessing what a reasonable person would have foreseen and done in the circumstances.

Justice Sheilah Martin, writing for the majority of the SCC, found that Chung’s actions were not comparable to momentary mistakes that a reasonable driver may make.  She wrote:

A reasonable person would have foreseen that rapidly accelerating towards a major intersection at a high speed creates a very real risk of a collision occurring within seconds.  This is what actually occurred in Mr. Chung’s case.  Risky conduct at excessive speeds foreseeably can result in immediate consequences. 

… A reasonable person understands that driving is an inherently risky activity.  It is made all the more risky the faster we drive, the harder we accelerate, and the more aggressively we navigate traffic.  Although even careful driving can result in tragic consequences, some conduct is so dangerous that it deserves criminal sanctions.

The SCC concluded that the test for mens rea is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the immediate risk of travelling almost three times the speed limit towards a major intersection.  Therefore, it held that Chung’s driving was a “marked departure from the norm”.

Justice Martin warned that there may be cases where excessive speed may not be a discrepancy from the standard of care.  She explained:

Only when there has been an active engagement with the full picture of what occurred can the trial judge determine whether the accused’s conduct was a marked departure from the conduct of a reasonable and prudent driver.

The SCC dismissed the appeal and restored Chung’s conviction.

If you have been charged with a driving related offence or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  Our skilled criminal defence lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  We offer a free consultation and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Trust our experienced criminal lawyers to handle your defence with diligence, strategy and expertise.

Reduced Sentence for Drunk Driver Who Killed Three

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The driver of a vehicle who was involved in deadly car accident has had his sentence reduced from nine years to seven years by the Ontario Court of Appeal who found that the trial judge erred in reviewing punishments imposed in similar cases.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On April 10, 2016, Prithvi Randhawa (“Randhawa”), 22 years-old at the time, drove his vehicle, including four friends, at a high rate of speed through a residential neighbourhood after a night of drinking at Luxy night club in Concord.  Randhawa was found to have twice the legal limit of alcohol in his system.

Travelling at 135 km/h on Jane Street, Randhawa collided with a traffic signal pole near Sheppard Avenue West, the vehicle went airborne and crashed upside down.  The four passengers were all ejected from the vehicle.  Three of them died and one was serious injured.  The passengers ranged in age between 19 to 24 years-old.

The surviving passenger, Atul Verma, suffered a traumatic brain injury, a fractured ankle, knee damage, a lacerated liver and lumbar spine fractures.  At the time of the trial, he continued to suffer from constant pain, sleepless nights and the deprivation of some of the activities that he used to enjoy.

As a result of the crash, Randhawa sustained a traumatic brain injury and collapsed lung.   He regained consciousness in hospital two days following the accident.  Due to the injuries he suffered, he lost all memory of the events starting from his time inside the nightclub until he regained consciousness.

Randhawa was found guilty of three counts of impaired driving causing death and one count of impaired driving causing bodily harm.  Justice James Chaffe sentenced him to nine years in jail and a driving ban of 93 months.

Justice Chaffe reviewed three similar cases before imposing a sentence.  He held that Randhawa’s conduct was “egregious” and worse than the cases he reviewed. One of the cases reviewed by Justice Chaffe was the sentencing of Marco Muzzo who killed three children and their grandfather while impaired in 2016.  The sentence Justice Chaffe imposed on Randhawa was a year less than the sentence in the Muzzo case.

THE APPEAL

Randhawa appealed Justice Chaffe’s sentencing decision arguing that the trial judge erred in determining his sentence within the ranges available.  More specifically, it was argued that the sentencing judge failed to consider or misconstrued facts regarding other similar cases when considering an appropriate sentence.

On behalf of the Court of Appeal, Justice Nordheimer found that Justice Chaffe failed to explain why Randhawa’s offence was worse than two of the cases that he had reviewed.  Justice Nordheimer stated:

I am unable to find a basis upon which the sentencing judge’s finding could be supported.  This is of concern because, as I have said, it is this finding that clearly drove the sentencing judge to determine that a sentence of nine years was appropriate.

Justice Nordheimer ruled that Randhawa’s conduct was most similar to two of the cases under consideration, involving impairment, driving too fast and multiple deaths.  Justice Nordheimer also found that the sentencing judge failed to give consideration to Randhawa’s young age and the fact that Randhawa suffered very serious injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, in the crash.

Randhawa also argued that the sentencing judge did not consider that he will be facing numerous civil lawsuits arising from the accident, and subject to large judgments.  Justice Nordheimer did not find this to be an error made by the sentencing judge and is not a mitigating factor that is required to be considered when determining a sentence.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Alexandra Hoy was of the opinion that the sentencing decision was appropriate.  She felt that it was within Justice Chaffe’s discretion to conclude that Randhawa’s conduct was more egregious than the drivers in two of the cases.  Furthermore, Randhawa was driving even faster than Muzzo and in a busier area.  She also made note that Randhawa had a worse driving record than Muzzo, including infractions for speeding and running a red light. 

If you have been charged with a driving related offence or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal defence lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  Our skilled criminal defence lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  We offer a free consultation and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Trust our experienced criminal lawyers to handle your defence with diligence, strategy and expertise.

New Trial Ordered for Homeowner Who Killed Car Thief

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

In a unanimous decision, a Hamilton-area man who killed a car thief in front of his home has been ordered to stand trial on the charge of second-degree murder. 

The Ontario Court of Appeal has overturned Peter Khill’s (“Khill”) finding of not guilty.

On appeal, the court has ruled that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Khill’s conduct leading up to the moment he pulled the trigger and killed Jon Styres (“Styres”), a First Nations man.

In June 2018 (please see our blog regarding the trial), Khill, a homeowner and former army reservist, was found not guilty following a 12-day jury trial where he maintained that he fired his gun in self-defence.  An individual can use reasonable force to alleviate a threat to themselves or others under the laws of self-defence in Canada.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On February 4, 2016 at approximately 3 a.m., 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.

Given his military training, Khill proceeded to grab a 12 gauge shotgun from his bedroom closet.  He loaded it with two shells and ran outside 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.  Khill argued that this response provoked him to fire two close-range shots that killed Styres, almost immediately. 

At his trial, Khill told the court:

I felt that I was being threatened and that I wasn’t in control of the situation.  I needed to gain control of the situation and neutralize any threat that was there. … I thought my life was in danger and I think the right to self-defence is overlapping between military and civilian life.

The Crown prosecutor argued that Styres did not pose a reasonable threat and that Khill and his girlfriend should have called 911 and waited for police to arrive, rather than approach Styres with a loaded shotgun. 

At the trial, the jury learned that Styres did not have a gun that night and was only carrying a folding knife in his pocket.

Khill pleaded not guilty and his lawyer argued that the shooting was “justified” as Khill believed that Styres had a gun and he feared for his life.  Furthermore, it was argued that Khill was following his training as a military reservist and was acting reasonably to defend himself under the circumstances.  A Hamilton jury found Khill not guilty of the murder of Styres.

THE APPEAL

At the appeal, the Crown prosecutor argued that the trial judge made four errors.  It was argued that three of the errors involved instructions to the jury regarding self-defence and the fourth error was in regard to the admissibility of evidence from an expert.

The appeal court agreed with one of the Crown’s submissions of an error by the trial judge, allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial on the basis that the trial judge failed to appropriately instruct the jury.  Specifically, the trial judge failed to instruct the jury to consider Khill’s conduct leading up to the moment the trigger was pulled leaving them incompetent to evaluate the “reasonableness” of his actions.

The Appeal Court said:

Mr. Khil’s role in the incident leading up to the shooting was potentially a significant factor in the assessment of the reasonableness of the shooting.  The failure to explain that relevance and to instruct the jury on the need to consider Mr. Khill’s conduct throughout the incident in assessing the reasonableness of the shooting left the jury unequipped to grapple with what may have been a crucial question in the evaluation of the reasonableness of Mr. Khill’s act.  On this basis, the acquittal must be set aside and a new trial ordered.

Khill’s lawyer has stated that he is reviewing the appeal court decision and considering whether to make an application for an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. 

Khill is also facing an ongoing civil lawsuit for more than $2 million brought by Styres’ spouse and two young daughters.

We will continue to follow any updates regarding this case and will provide any new developments in this blog.

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 defence lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  We offer a free consultation and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Trust our experienced criminal lawyers to handle your defence with diligence, strategy and expertise. 

Joyriding Teen Pleads Guilty to Manslaughter in 2011 Police Death

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A young man, known only as S.K., has recently pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter for the death of York Regional Police Constable Garrett Styles. 

Following an appeal of his conviction and sentence, the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial for S.K.  Both the Crown prosecutors and lawyers for S.K. agreed on a plea deal.  S.K. was sentenced to two years probation and several conditions are in place regarding his operation of a motor vehicle. 

WHAT HAPPENED?

On June 28, 2011, 15 year-old S.K. took his father’s minivan for a drive with his friends, without his parents’ consent.

At 4:45 a.m., S.K. was stopped by Constable Styles for traveling 147 km/h in an 80 km/h zone.  S.K. was advised that the minivan would be impounded and he was repeatedly ordered to get out of the vehicle.  S.K. refused and pleaded with the officer to let him go.  Constable Styles proceeded to open the driver’s door and attempted to undo S.K.’s seat belt.  At that point, S.K.’s van began to move and Constable Styles was caught between S.K. and the steering wheel.  Constable Styles eventually jerked the steering wheel to the left causing the van to leave the highway, enter a ditch, proceed up an embankment, become airborne and roll 360 degrees.  Constable Styles was ejected from the van, which then fell on top of him.  He was pronounced dead shortly after arriving at the hospital.

As a result of this incident, S.K. suffered a spinal fracture that rendered him quadriplegic.

S.K. was charged with first-degree murder.  The key question at the trial was whether S.K. intended to drive away (alleged by the Crown prosecutor) or whether he accelerated by accident (alleged by the defence). 

S.K. was tried and a jury found that he intentionally accelerated and should have known that his actions were “likely” to lead to the death of the police officer.  S.K. was convicted and was sentenced to one day in custody in addition to time served (8 months) and a conditional supervision order for nine years to be served in the community. 

THE APPEAL

S.K. appealed his conviction on 5 separate grounds alleging that the trial judge made several legal errors. 

The three judge panel all agreed that the trial judge erred in failing to instruct the jury of the importance of S.K.’s age and level of maturity in assessing whether he knew his dangerous driving was likely to cause Constable Style’s death.

Justice Janet Simmons wrote:

This was a tragic case in which a police officer was killed as a result of the irresponsible acts of a headstrong 15-year-old.  In these circumstances, it was necessary for the trial judge to caution the jury that 15-year-olds do not have the same life experience as adults and that, as a result, a 15-year-old may not have the level of maturity to foresee the consequences of a particular course of action.

However, the judges of the appeal court panel disagreed as to whether the trial judge erred in excluding a statement that S.K. made to his father 26 days after the crash.  Following the crash, S.K. was intubated and unable to speak for three weeks. S.K. had told his father that he did not intentionally set the van in motion.  S.K.’s lawyers sought to introduce the statement as evidence of his state of mind during the police incident, however, the judge ruled against it.

Justice Simmons held that the statement should have been admitted “to respond to an implicit allegation of recent fabrication and to provide overall context for the jury about what the appellant had said close in time to the incident.” 

On the other hand, Justice Michael Tulloch and Justice David Brown ruled that the trial judge had made the right decision in not admitting the statement as evidence. 

On October 1, 2019, the appeal court allowed the appeal, set aside S.K.’s conviction and ordered a new trial.

GUILTY PLEA

Earlier this month, York Regional Police Services released a statement to confirm that a plea agreement had been reached between the Crown and S.K.  In coming to this decision, the Crown considered whether the family of Constable Styles could bear another trial and the impact another trial would have on witnesses, including first responders. 

Following numerous discussions between the parties, S.K. agreed to plead guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to two years probation and conditions were placed on his ability to operate a motor vehicle.

If you have been charged with a driving related offence or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  Our skilled criminal defence lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  We offer a free consultation and are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.  Trust our experienced criminal lawyers to handle your defence with diligence, strategy and expertise.

Criminal Convictions are in Jeopardy Following Clarification of New Rules For Jury Selection by the Appeal Court

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

A recent ruling by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of R. v. Chouhan, regarding how jury selection changes should be applied, could require new trials for those recently convicted in Ontario.

Pardeep Singh Chouhan (“Chouhan”) challenged the new rules for jury selection that were set out in Bill C-75 at the court of appeal.  The jury selection process in Chouhan’s first-degree murder trial took place on the same day as the changes to the legislation came into force.  The appeal court upheld the constitutionality of the new rules, however, ruled that the trial judge did not apply the new rules correctly.

WHAT CHANGES OCCURRED AS A RESULT OF BILL C-75?

As we have previously blogged, following the acquittal of Gerald Stanley, who was charged with killing a 22-year-old Indigenous man, Bill C-75 was introduced to modify the jury selection process in Canada.  The changes to jury selection were intended to make juries more representative.

The reform of the jury selection procedure under the new legislation, which came into force on September 19, 2019, is as follows:

  1. The trial judge will be the one to determine whether the prospective juror is likely to decide the case impartially in the circumstances when either party has challenged the juror for cause. 
  2. The ability to challenge prospective jurors by means of peremptory challenges by either party has been eliminated.
  3. The trial judge has been given the discretion to stand aside a juror for the purpose of maintaining public confidence in the administration of justice.

WHAT HAPPENED AT CHOUHAN’S TRIAL?

Chouhan was charged with first-degree murder in the 2016 shooting death of  Maninder Sandhu.  Chouhan was scheduled to select a jury for his murder trial on September 19, 2019, the same day that Bill C-75 and the changes to the jury selection process came into force.  We have previously blogged about this Superior Court decision.

At that time, Chouhan’s lawyers requested that the court use the previous jury selection rules as the new jury selection process violated Chouhan’s Charter rights.  The presiding judge rejected the defence arguments that doing away with peremptory challenges infringed Chouhan’s constitutional right to be tried by an independent and impartial jury.  Ontario Superior Court Justice John McMahon ruled that the new changes to the jury selection process should apply to every jury selected after the legislation came into force and for those cases in the system where the accused had already opted for a jury trial.

WHAT HAPPENED AT CHOUHAN’S APPEAL?

Chouhan’s case made its way to the court of appeal, at which point the unanimous court ruled that the new rules were constitutional and did not infringe Chouhan’s Charter rights.  However, the three judges of the appeal court held that the trial court did not apply the new rules appropriately.

Writing on behalf of the appeal court judges, Justice Watt wrote:

With respect to the temporal application of the amendments, I decide that the abolition of the peremptory challenge applies prospectively, that is to say, only to cases where the accused’s right to a trial by judge and jury vested on or after September 19, 2019.  …[T]he amendment making the presiding judge the trier of all challenges for cause applies retrospectively, that is to say, to all cases tried on or after September 19, 2019, irrespective of when the right vested.

[N]ot all accused charged with an offence before September 19, 2019 have a vested right to a trial by judge and jury under the former legislation.  For the right to have vested, the accused must have, before September 19, 2019:

(i) been charged with an offence within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Superior Court;

(ii) been directly indicted; or

(iii) elected for a trial in Superior Court by judge and jury.

The Court of Appeal allowed Chouhan’s appeal, set aside his conviction and ordered a new trial on the indictment.

The Ontario government can appeal this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada.  We understand that the Crown is currently reviewing the appeal court decision and we will provide an update in this blog when information regarding the government’s decision on an appeal becomes available.

We will continue to follow the affects of the Chouhan decision on legal cases and will provide updates in this blog.  We can advise that only hours after the appeal court decision in the Chouhan case, two cases being heard in Toronto’s Superior Court (a murder charge and a sexual assault case) were declared mistrials.

If you have questions regarding charges laid against you or your legal rights, please contact the experienced criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP at 905-404-1947 or contact us online.  Our skilled criminal defence lawyers have significant experience defending a wide range of criminal charges and protecting our client’s rights.  We offer a free consultation and are available to help you 24/7.

Two Convictions Overturned in Ontario Due to Rights Violations by Police

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

As we begin the new decade, in two separate Ontario court decisions, police violations of the accused’s rights resulted in quashing convictions for child pornography and weapons offences.  The Ontario Court of Appeal found that the breaches of the convicted individuals’ Charter rights by police brought the administration of justice into disrepute.

THE CASE OF PETER MCSWEENEY

Peter McSweeney (“McSweeney”) was convicted in October 2017 of child pornography offences partly based upon incriminating statements he made to police.

In May 2016, nine police officers arrived at McSweeney’s home with a search warrant.  Durham Regional Police Detective Jeff Lockwood spoke with McSweeney on his porch and began questioning him without reading him his rights.  McSweeney provided a self-incriminating statement and he was then arrested and taken to the police station.

McSweeney again incriminated himself after stating that he wished to remain silent after talking to a lawyer.

During the trial, Judge Mary Teresa Devlin allowed McSweeney’s statements to be entered as evidence despite the defence objecting.  Justice Devlin ruled that McSweeney was not detained when he gave a self-incriminating statement on the porch and therefore the officer was not obliged to advise him of the right to speak to a lawyer.

At the Court of Appeal, the judges found that a “reasonable observer” would have believed that McSweeney was detained at home and also found that the questioning at the police station was improper.

Justice Strathy, writing on behalf of the two other justices hearing the appeal, stated:

The state conduct was willful and in disregard of the appellant’s asserted Charter rights.  It had a serious impact on those rights and on his attempt to exercise them.

As a result of this decision, the appeal court allowed the appeal, quashed the convictions and ordered a new trial.

THE CASE OF BILAAL MOHAMMED

In May 2016, Bilaal Mohammed (“Mohammed”) was convicted of several firearm offences, possession of property obtained by crime, and possession of cannabis for the purpose of trafficking.  At the time of his appeal, he had already served his sentence.

During a routine traffic stop, Mohammed was pulled over by provincial police in a parking lot near Alfred, Ontario for a broken license-plate light.  The officer smelled marijuana and gave Mohammed a “soft caution” (an informal caution) and did not  advise him of his right to speak to a lawyer.

Mohammed was strip-searched in the parking lot, to the point of having his pants dropped to his ankle.  Police did not find a gun.  During the search of his car, police found some cash, a debt list, a grinder, a scale, several cellphones, some cannabis and ammunition.

Mohammed was asked if he had a gun and was told that if he turned it over he would be released.  He admitted that he had a loaded gun strapped to his pant leg.  He was arrested, advised of his rights and taken to the police station, at which point his cellphone was searched.

At his trial, Mohammed was convicted of various offences for which he appealed.  He challenged the trial judge’s ruling to admit evidence obtained during his roadside strip search, his interrogation without counsel, the search of his vehicle, and the search of his cellphone. 

At the appeal, the Crown agreed that failing to initially advise Mohammed of his rights, questioning him before he was able to talk to a lawyer, as well as the strip search and the search of Mohammed’s phone without a warrant were serious Charter breaches.

The judges that heard the appeal agreed with the Crown and stated “each of the breaches is serious.  Taken as a whole, the breaches are so egregious that the evidence must be excluded.”

The appeal court ruled that the first strip search was not authorized by law.  Furthermore, it was conducted in public in a highly invasive fashion.  Mohammed’s section 7 and 10(b) Charter rights were breached as he was questioned without being provided the right to counsel and he was persuaded to turn over the gun on false pretenses.  Finally, the warrantless search of Mohammed’s cellphone used as evidence of drug trafficking was in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The three justices on the appeal court panel wrote:

This was a series of serious rights violations, committed in apparent ignorance of well-established law, arising out of the appellant’s arrest for smoking a marijuana joint.  These violations had a significant impact on the appellant’s Charter-protected interests.

The Court of Appeal excluded all of the evidence, allowed the appeal and set aside the convictions.

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.  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 to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times. 

Alberta Court of Appeal Sets Minimum Sentencing for Fentanyl Trafficking

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

As the country copes with the opioid crisis, the highest court in Alberta has now set a new sentencing starting point for those convicted of fentanyl trafficking.  The court recognized the peril that Alberta is in and stressed that it is up to the courts “to protect the public by imposing sentences that will alter the cost-benefit math performed by high-level fentanyl traffickers”.

A special five-justice panel of the Alberta Court of Appeal heard two appeals by the Crown prosecutor regarding fentanyl trafficking and unanimously ruled that convictions for wholesale fentanyl trafficking should receive a minimum sentence of nine years.

THE APPEAL DECISION REGARDING CAMERON PARRANTO

Last year, Cameron O’Lynn Parranto (“Parranto”), who pleaded guilty, was sentenced to 11 years in prison for trafficking in fentanyl in Edmonton.  Police seized the equivalent of a half-million doses of fentanyl.

Parranto pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and other drugs for two sets of offences. 

After a search warrant was executed at Parranto’s home, police recovered 27.8 grams of fentayl, 182.5 grams of methamphetamine, 82.6 grams of cocaine, 396 morphine pills and 168 oxycodone pills.  They also found $55,575 in cash, a loaded handgun, ammunition, police and sheriff badges, body armour, a dozen cell phones, scales and a cash counter.

Following Parranto’s release for his first set of offences, he was arrested three months later when greater quantities of fentanyl, methamphetamines, cocaine, heroin, oxycodone and the date rape drug GHB were uncovered. 

Parranto pleaded guilty to both sets of offences and was handed an 11-year sentence for eight offences, five years for the March 2016 offences and 6 years for the October 2016 offences. 

The court of appeal increased Parranto’s sentence to 14 years, minus credit of 3 ½ years for pre-sentence custody.

THE APPEAL DECISION REGARDING PATRICK FELIX

Earlier this year, Patrick Felix (“Felix”), a wholesale drug trafficker in Fort McMurray, was sentenced to 7 years in prison for his role in trafficking fentanyl after pleading guilty.  Investigators seized approximately $1 million worth of drugs and 3,000 fentanyl pills.

Felix obtained drugs and stored them at a “stash” location.  He employed “runners” to take orders, retrieve the drugs from the stash location and complete the deals.  “Food bosses” were also used to manage the runners, collect money from the sales and then provide Felix with the proceeds.

In 2015, Felix sold drugs to an undercover police officer on six separate occasions.  Felix provided 2,388 fentanyl pills and 2.5 kilograms of cocaine for a total price of $173,400. 

At trial, Felix pleaded guilty to four counts of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine.  He was sentenced to seven years for each count of fentanyl trafficking and four years for each count of cocaine trafficking to be served concurrently.  A concurrent sentence occurs when all sentences are served at the same time, with the longest sentence period controlling the length of time in jail. 

The Crown prosecutor appealed the sentence and requested that the appeal court establish a minimum sentence for those convicted of wholesale trafficking in opioids.  On appeal, the Crown also argued that the trial judge made “case-specific errors that affected the fitness of the sentence imposed”. 

At the appeal, Justice Antonio wrote that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was “demonstrably unfit” in part due to the judge’s failure to distinguish between commercial trafficking and wholesale trafficking and failing to take into account Felix’s role in the organization.

Justice Antonio, writing on behalf of all the judges on the bench, stated:

Mr. Felix’s role was at the top of his organization, which is a weighty aggravating factor.  He energetically ran a business that was structured to maximize profit while minimizing the chance of criminal consequences to himself.  He was responsible for pouring poison into his own community and potentially others, jeopardizing the health and lives of untold numbers of end users.

Trafficking in cocaine has a four-and-a-half year starting point for sentencing.  A starting point for sentencing of a low-level commercial dealer of heroin is typically five years. 

The court will take into account the dangerousness of the drug and the scale of the offender’s involvement in the drug operation when establishing a minimum sentence for those convicted.  The court of appeal found that wholesale trafficking is more morally blameworthy than commercial trafficking as it presents a grave danger to individuals, communities and the greater public interest.  The appeal court defined wholesale trafficking as one that traffics large amounts of one or more drugs or distributes drugs on a large scale, possibly for resale.

Given the appeal court’s comments, the Crown was successful on appeal and set a starting point for those found guilty of commercial trafficking at nine years.  Felix’s overall sentence was increased by the court to 10 years.

If you have been charged with a drug related charge or have questions regarding your legal rights, please contact the knowledgeable criminal lawyers at Affleck & Barrison LLP online or at 905-404-1947.  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 telephone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice.