Recent Decisions

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.

 

 

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.

Former Reservist Found Not Guilty in Fatal Shooting of Unarmed Man

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

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

WHAT HAPPENED?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JURY SELECTION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

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

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

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

WHAT HAPPENED?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 WHAT IS MURDER?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sexual Offender Sentenced to 15 Years After Putting Woman in Coma

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

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

The victim cannot be identified under court order.

WHAT HAPPENED?

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

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

WHAT HAPPENED DURING SENTENCING?

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

The Crown prosecutor requested 20 years in prison for Bird.

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT IS A GLADUE REPORT?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jury Finds Lovers Guilty of First-Degree Murder

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

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

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

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

WHAT HAPPENED?

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

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

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

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

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

Both men denied any involvement in the death of Lanteigne.

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

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

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

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

RARE REINSTATEMENT OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER CHARGE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

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

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

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

LOWER COURT DECISION

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

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

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

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

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

WHY IS THE JORDAN DECISION RELEVANT TO THIS CASE?

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

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

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

ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL

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

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

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

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

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

Woman Asleep in Her Vehicle Convicted of Impaired Driving

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

An Ontario Court judge has convicted Erin Medakovic (“Medakovic”) of impaired driving when she was found asleep in a parked vehicle with the engine running and the driver’s door open.

Justice Vanessa Christie ruled that the Crown prosecutor had demonstrated “there was a realistic risk that Ms. Medakovic, who admittedly was impaired behind the wheel, may unintentionally set the vehicle in motion”.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On April 24, 2017, in the Town of Northeastern Manitoulin, the police were contacted by a man returning from working the night shift who noticed a car driver’s door open, the engine running and a woman in the driver’s seat. Officers attended at 1:50 a.m. and found a woman in a deep sleep in the reclined driver’s seat, with the door open and the engine running. The woman woke up after the officers tapped on the car window for 30 seconds. She sat up, had slow, slurred and laboured speech.

Inside the car, the officers found an LCBO bag with six empty cans and inside a purse they found Medakovic’s identification.

The officers administered a breath sample test which showed readings of 195 and 193, which were double the legal allowable level.

Medakovic told the officers she had eight beers and had been drinking since 2 p.m. She informed the officers that her last drink was at 11 p.m. and she had been asleep in her car for an hour. Medakovic told officers she thought it was ridiculous that she could not remain in her car and “sleep it off”.

At trial, Medakovic gave evidence that she had driven to Little Current from Sudbury on April 22 and was visiting friends. She parked in her male friend’s driveway, but her friend needed access to his driveway so he moved her car to the grass shoulder in front of his home. She told her male friend that she was trying to stay the night with a couple of friends and if that did not work out, she would sleep in her car. Medakovic gave evidence that her plans did not work out, so she decided to sleep in her car and turned the vehicle on to keep her warm. She could not comment on how or why the driver’s door was ajar.

Medakovic was charged with impaired driving and having more than the legal allowable level of alcohol in her system while driving.

CARE OR CONTROL OF A MOTOR VEHICLE

Medakovic was charged and convicted under Section 253 of the Criminal Code (“CC”), which reads as follows:

253(1) Every one commits an offence who operates a motor vehicle or vessel or operates or assists in the operation of an aircraft or of railway equipment or has the care or control of a motor vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railways equipment, whether it is in motion or not,

 (a)  while the person’s ability to operate the vehicle, vessel, aircraft or railway equipment is impaired by alcohol or drug; or

(b)  having consumed alcohol in such a quantity that the concentration in the person’s blood exceeds eighty milligrams of alcohol in one hundred mililitres of blood.

In her judgment, Justice Christie relied upon the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Boudreault, which outlined the essential elements of “care or control” as it applies to section 253(1) of the CC. The elements are as follows:

  • an intentional course of conduct associated with a motor vehicle;
  • by a person whose ability to drive is impaired, or whose blood alcohol level exceeds the legal limit;
  • in circumstances that create a realistic risk of danger to persons or property.

Justice Christie applied the facts of the case and found that Medakovic did not have an intention to drive that evening after she had consumed alcohol. She also found that the evidence at trial established that the stationary vehicle was positioned in a way that would not cause any safety concern and therefore not a realistic risk of danger. However, Justice Christie did find that the Crown had proven, based upon the evidence, that there was a realistic risk that Medakovic may unintentionally set the vehicle in motion.

Justice Christie found that Medakovic had care or control of a vehicle while impaired based upon the following facts that came out of the trial:

  • Medakovic was seated in the driver’s seat;
  • Medakovic locked the doors of the vehicle after she got in;
  • Medakovic became cold after she entered the vehicle and put the key in the ignition, turned the car on and put the heat on high;
  • Medakovic admitted she was impaired while in the driver’s seat and she was confused when she was awakened by the officers;
  • The officers testified that it took longer than usual to wake Medakovic up and she was initially disoriented and confused;
  • Medakovic’s feet were approximately one foot away from the car pedals;
  • Medakovic admitted she thrashes in her sleep and does not know what she is doing;
  • Medakovic admitted she is a deep sleeper and has slept walked in the past;
  • Medakovic admitted she has done things in her sleep that she is not aware of;
  • Medakovic admitted she could easily sit up and grip the steering wheel;
  • Medakovic had no explanation as to how the driver’s door became open and did not recall opening it; and
  • The vehicle was parked on a residential street, which could cause an immediate safety hazard.

Based on this evidence, Justice Christie found that the Crown had established that there was a realistic risk that Medakovic may unintentionally set the vehicle in motion while she was impaired and therefore Medakovic had the care and control of the vehicle contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the CC.

If you have been charged with a 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 have a 24-hour phone service for your convenience.

Conviction Upheld for Toronto Cop

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the 2016 conviction of attempted murder and six-year jail sentence of Toronto Police Constable James Forcillo (“Forcillo”).

We have previously blogged about the trial court decision where a jury found Forcillo guilty of attempted murder in the death of 18-year-old Sammy Yatim (“Yatim”).

WHAT HAPPENED?

On July 27, 2013, police were called to the scene with reports about a disturbance aboard the 505 Dundas streetcar.  At trial, the jury heard evidence that Yatim had consumed the drug ecstasy before boarding the westbound streetcar at Yonge Street. He then proceeded to expose himself to women on the streetcar and withdrew a switchblade. The streetcar stopped near Grace Street and all passengers exited the doors.

Forcillo and his partner were the first officers to arrive and found Yatim alone on the streetcar. Forcillo fired nine shots from the street at Yatim after repeatedly requesting that the youth drop a small knife that he was holding as he stood aboard an empty streetcar. Forcillo fired two separate rounds of shots. Yatim was critically injured by the first round of shots, which caused him to fall on the floor of the streecar.

At trial, Forcillo faced two charges: second-degree murder for the first round of gunfire and attempted murder for the second round. The jury found Forcillo was justified in firing the first three shots at Yatim, and therefore not guilty of second-degree murder. However, the jury concluded that Forcillo was not justified in firing the second round of shots, and therefore convicted him of attempted murder.

THE SENTENCE AT TRIAL

Justice Edward Then sentenced Forcillo to six years in jail after the jury convicted him of attempted murder.

At the sentencing hearing, Forcillo’s lawyers argued that a minimum sentence should apply to a police officer on duty.

Justice Then stated that the second round of gunfire was “unreasonable, unnecessary and excessive” and contrary to Forcillo’s police training. He went on to explain that the sentence must match the crime. Furthermore, he expressed his belief that police officers should be held to a higher standard than members of the public and that Forcillo should have used de-escalation techniques to convince Yatim to release his weapon.

Forcillo had been granted bail pending the appeal decision, but he has been behind bars since late last year as a result of breaching his bail conditions. He has been charged with perjury and attempting to obstruct justice and is currently suspended without pay from the Toronto police.

THE APPEAL

In October, 2017, Forcillo launched an appeal. Forcillo requested that the Court of Appeal substitute a not guilty verdict or order a new trial. On appeal, Forcillo’s lawyers raised several questions about the trial and the sentence, including:

  • Whether the conviction for attempted murder can stand?
  • Whether the trial judge erred in excluding evidence regarding Mr. Yatim’s state of mind?
  • Whether the trial judge erred in sentencing Forcillo beyond the five-year mandatory minimum sentence?

This week, the Court of Appeal dismissed Forcillo’s appeal of both his conviction and sentence. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the six-year prison sentence was “fit” considering the surrounding circumstances of the crime, including Forcillo’s failure to express remorse.

The Court of Appeal found that the jury’s verdict was reasonable as there were obvious differences between the circumstances when Forcillo fired the first set of shots and when he discharged the second set of gunfire (given that Yatim was hit and laying on his back during the second round of gunfire).

The Court of Appeal stated:

[Forcillo] knew from his training that Mr. Yatim did not pose an imminent threat to anyone merely by re-arming himself with a knife. He knew that he was not entitled to kill Mr. Yatim in these circumstances, yet he proceeded to fire six additional rounds fixed with that lethal intent.

Forcillo has the option of appealing this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada. In order to do so, Forcillo would have to demonstrate that there is an issue of national importance. Forcillo’s lawyers are currently considering whether to appeal. We will keep you updated as this matter continues to develop.

If you have been charged with a serious 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 offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.

Supreme Court Upholds First Degree Murder Convictions for Death of 6-Year-Old

Written on Behalf of Affleck & Barrison LLP

The Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) has upheld the first-degree murder convictions of Spencer Jordan (“Jordan”) and Marie Magoon (“Magoon”), who were charged in the death of six-year-old Meika Jordan (“Meika”).

Defence lawyers requested that the SCC reverse a decision by the Alberta Court of Appeal, which upgraded Jordan and Magoon’s second-degree murder convictions after ruling that Meika had been confined prior to her death (a condition that automatically increases the severity of a murder offence).

Under the original second-degree murder convictions, Jordan and Magoon had been sentenced to life in prison without parole for a minimum of 17 years. The upgraded first-degree murder convictions carry an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On November 14, 2011, Meika died after spending the weekend at the home of her father, Jordan, and stepmother, Magoon. The six-year-old was tortured for days leading up to her death by being forced to run stairs, dragged up and down the stairs by her ankles, repeatedly hit and even burned. She suffered damage to her internal organs and a subdural hematoma and cerebral swelling caused by at least five blows to her head. No medical attention was sought until Meika was in complete cardiac and respiratory failure. Jordan and Magoon told police that Meika had fallen down the stairs, however, the medical evidence supported a pattern of frequent and intentional violence.

Jordan and Magoon were charged with first degree murder and convicted of second degree murder at trial in 2015. They appealed their convictions and the Crown prosecutors appealed the first degree murder acquittals. The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed the accuseds’ appeals, but allowed the Crown appeals. The Appeal Court held that the accused unlawfully confined Meika rendering them liable for first degree murder under section 231(5) of the Criminal Code of Canada (“CC”).

The SCC refused to hear an appeal to have the convictions entirely quashed, but did hear arguments on the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision to upgrade the charge from second-degree murder to first-degree murder.

The nine SCC justices took less than 10 minutes to come to the decision to dismiss all appeals in November, 2017. The SCC found that the Court of Appeal did not err in substituting verdicts of guilty of murder in the first degree. The written reasons for the ruling were released on April 13, 2018.

MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE

The crime of murder is deemed as the most vicious of crimes in Canadian society. This is reflected in the harshness of the sanctions and punishments for this crime.

In Canada, there are two divisions of murder and one of manslaughter. First degree murder is planned and deliberate (with a few exceptions), whereas second degree murder is defined as murder that is not first degree (not premeditated). Manslaughter is defined as a homicide committed without the intention to cause death.

First degree murder bears an automatic life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years. Once on parole, offenders remain on parole for the rest of their life and must report to a parole officer and are subject to conditions of their parole. If any of the conditions of parole are broken, they are sent directly back to prison without a hearing.

WHAT IS FIRST DEGREE MURDER UNDER SECTION 231(5) OF THE CRIMINAL CODE?

There are some homicides automatically deemed first degree murder, even if they were not intentional or planned. These include assassination of a police officer or prison employee on duty (section 231(4) of the CC) or murder committed in conjunction with one of the following offences (section 231 (5) of the CC):

  • hijacking;
  • sexual assault;
  • sexual assault with a weapon;
  • aggravated sexual assault;
  • kidnapping;
  • forcible confinement;
  • hostage taking;
  • terrorism;
  • intimidation;
  • criminal harassment; or
  • any offence committed on behalf of a criminal organization.

The section of the CC that was applied in Meika’s case was section 231(5)(e), which reads as follows:

(5)       Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:

            (e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement);

The case of R. v. Pritchard explained Parliament’s intention to “treat murders committed in connection with crimes of domination as particularly blameworthy and deserving of more severe punishment”.

The applicable test to be applied in determining guilt of first degree murder under section 231(5)(e) of the CC was set out in R. v. Harbottle. The Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that:

  1. the accused was guilty of the underlying crime of domination or of attempting to commit that crime;
  2. the accused was guilty of the murder of the victim;
  3. the accused participated in the murder in such a manner that he/she was a substantial cause of the death of the victim;
  4. there was no intervening act of another which resulted in the accused no longer being substantially connected to the death of the victim; and
  5. the crimes of domination and murder were part of the same transaction.

In Meika’s case, the SCC found that although there were no physical restraints used, Meika was physically restrained and restricted to remain in her bedroom or the basement. Furthermore, given the parent child relationship there is less of a requirement for physical restraints due to the unequal relationship that exists. “[D]isciplining a child by restricting his or her ability to move about freely (by physical or psychological means), contrary to the child’s wishes, which exceeds the outer bounds of punishment that a parent or guardian could lawfully administer, constitutes unlawful confinement.” Therefore, the SCC found that the Harbottle test was met.

If you have been charged with a serious 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 offer a 24-hour phone service to protect your rights and to ensure that you have access to justice at all times.