Criminal Law: Entrapment; Delay; Kienapple

Haniffa v. R., 2021 ONCA 326 (39803)
The Applicant, Erhard Haniffa, was arrested charged with offences under ss. 172.1(1)(a) (child luring under 18), 172.1(1)(b) (child luring under 16), and 286.1(2) (communicating to obtain sexual services from a minor) of the Criminal Code. The charges arose out of “Project Raphael”, designed by the York Regional Police — an undercover investigation that began in 2014 with the objective of reducing the demand for sexual services from juveniles in the region by targeting the “buyer side”. As part of the investigation, the police posted fake advertisements in the “escorts” section of an online classified advertising website. When individuals responded to the ads, an undercover officer posing as an escort would disclose in the ensuing text chat that “she” was underage. Individuals who continued the chat and arranged sexual services and a price were directed to a hotel room to complete the transaction; they were arrested and charged on arrival. The trial judge found the Applicant guilty on all three counts. In a post-trial application, the trial judge stayed the conviction under s. 172.1(1)(a) (child luring under 18) pursuant to Kienapple v. The Queen. The Applicant also applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of entrapment, and made two different applications for a stay claiming delay in violation of s. 11(b). All three applications were dismissed in separate proceedings. The Applicant’s appeals from the conviction, from the Kienapple ruling on multiple convictions, from the entrapment application, and from the s. 11(b) applications, were dismissed. His sentence appeal was allowed. “The motion for an extension of time to serve and file the application for leave to appeal is granted. The application for leave to appeal…is granted only on the entrapment issue. The appeal is to be heard with the appeal as of right in Corey Daniel Ramelson v. Her Majesty the Queen (39664).”


Criminal Law: Expert Evidence; Criminal Gangs

O. v. R., 2020 ONSC 7844 (39771)
There is a publication ban in this case; certain information is not available to the public, in the context of the threshold test for admitting expert evidence on criminal gangs. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”

Criminal Law: Hearsay; Res gestae Exception

Badger v. R., 2021 SKCA 118 (39844)
Mr. Ray was shot after two masked men burst into his house. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, he twice identified the Applicant, Jacob Charles Badger, as the person who had shot him. Mr. Badger was charged with attempted murder. At trial, Mr. Ray failed to identify his assailants. At the close of a voir dire, the statements he had made shortly after being shot were admitted into evidence as res gestae, on the basis of the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule. The trial judge found Mr. Badger guilty of the lesser included offence of aggravated assault. A majority of the Sask. C.A. dismissed Mr. Badger’s appeal. The majority concluded the trial judge did not err in determining the utterances met the threshold of reliability required for admission. “The application for leave to appeal…is dismissed.”