The ReeveLaw Blog

According to the Globe and Mail:

Federal prosecutions impacted by Toronto Police corruption allegations
  
The latest: Roughly 30 federal prosecutions have been affected by criminal charges against Toronto Police Service officers allegedly tied to a sweeping police corruption probe, according to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC). Criminal charges or allegations of misconduct against a police officer can disrupt prosecutions that depend on the officer’s testimony and reliable evidence.
 
 Context: York Regional Police announced charges in February against seven serving Toronto police officers and a retired officer, as well as 19 civilians, on an array of allegations, including a plot to murder a corrections officer, bribery and drug trafficking. Investigators said members of organized crime were buying data and addresses from police officers, which were then used to co-ordinate shootings and other crimes.
 
Methodology: The PPSC confirmed the number of affected cases after The Globe and Mail obtained internal e-mails through access to information legislation, which included lists of cases involving officers who were arrested in connection to the Project South probe.
  
What’s next: The president of the Toronto Police Association, Clayton Campbell, said it was too early to know how the allegations against the officers could impact prosecutions.

The Toronto Star
Ontario’s police watchdog plans to investigate members of Toronto’s drug squad
The disciplinary probe stems from a criminal investigation into a detective accused of trying to obstruct justice by stealing evidence.

By Jim RankinStaff Reporter, and Abby O’BrienStaff Reporter

An unknown number of Toronto police drug squad officers will be the subjects of a conduct investigation by Ontario’s police watchdog, the Star has learned.
The investigations will commence following the end of the criminal case against Brian Sukhram, a detective constable with Toronto’s drug squad who is accused of stealing evidence from an investigation and attempting to obstruct justice.
Sukhram was first arrested in 2024 for impaired driving, a charge he pleaded guilty to earlier this year. Court heard that prior to his arrest, Sukhram had been drinking alcohol inside the Toronto police drug squad office after executing a search warrant.
Toronto police’s Professional Standards Unit called in the Ontario Provincial Police the following year to investigate “allegations related to members of the TPS,” Kalleen Turchet, an OPP spokesperson said in response to questions from the Star.
That OPP investigation led to Sukhram being charged again, this time for charges including breach of trust and obstruction of justice, the latter for allegedly stealing evidence in a criminal investigation.
Sukhram was the only officer charged as part of the OPP investigation, which the service says is now complete.

https://www.thesarniajournal.ca/letters-to-the-editor/being-tough-on-crime-is-the-wrong-approach-12243683

According to the Globe & Mail:

There are two layers to DADSS (Drive Alcohol Detection System for Safety program) that could someday find their ways into vehicles. Both would be designed to prevent cars from turning on when the driver’s blood alcohol content is at or above 0.08 per cent, which is the limit in many U.S. states. The mechanisms are passive, meaning a driver wouldn’t need to breathe into a special device just to turn on their car.
 
Instead, DADDS tech proposes checking a driver’s breath through sensors in the cabin that use infrared light beams to measure alcohol levels. Proposed sensor locations include the steering column and driver-side door – placed in such a way that other passengers’ breath wouldn’t affect the measurements. A second proposal would use non-invasive touch sensors, possibly on ignition buttons or on the gear shift, to measure alcohol levels in the blood beneath the skin.

Judge slams veteran prosecutor for angrily telling Toronto cop ‘we protect our own.’ Dangerous driving case tossed

By Jacques GallantCourts and Justice Reporter

When a Toronto police officer asked a veteran Crown attorney if he was supposed to lie on the stand, she responded with, “We protect our own.” 

Or words that conveyed that exact message. 

That was the damning finding made by a judge Monday against Crown attorney Marnie Goldenberg, who berated Const. Edin Hasanbasic in January in a hallway of the Toronto provincial courthouse at 10 Armoury St., in an encounter caught on video but without sound. Hasanbasic had just finished testifying for the defence in the case of a man accused of deliberately hitting a fellow officer with a motorcycle; Hasanbasic’s evidence risked hurting the Crown’s case. 

Ontario Court Justice Mara Greene concluded that Goldenberg’s conduct has negatively impacted the integrity of the justice system, and said she had no choice but to stay charges of dangerous driving causing bodily harm, fail to remain at the scene of an accident, and obstruction of justice against Khalid Patrick Idris. 

While Goldenberg denied saying the words “we protect our own,” or that she was angry and swearing at Hasanbasic, the judge rejected her version of events, finding it wasn’t credible. Greene said the long-time prosecutor was “less than candid” in her testimony, “did not provide the court with a fair and fulsome account of what took place,” and had “displayed a complete lack of objectivity about this case.” Play Video

By telling Hasanbasic, “we protect our own,” or words to that effect, Goldenberg had communicated a specific message to all police officers, the judge found: “Stay on our side, or there will be consequences.”

“It is reasonable to infer that this has a real potential of having a chilling effect on officers testifying contrary to the prosecution’s theory,” Greene said.

“The only way to preserve the integrity of the justice system is for this court to distance itself from the conduct and enter a stay of proceedings.” 

Bail denials rising sharply in Ontario amid national clampdown

David Epner – The Globe and Mail

The number of people denied bail in Ontario last year spiked to its highest level in data going back to 2018, and has more than doubled over the past two years.

The new data from the Ontario Court of Justice are the latest indication of how the justice system applies the law of bail on a day-to-day basis. The 2025 numbers are more evidence that courts across the country are denying bail to an increasing number of people.It is a long-established trend, one that Ontario has led in recent years.

Other evidence also shows that people accused of crimes in Ontario are being denied bail in record numbers. As of last September, according to Statistics Canada, more people in the province’s jails were there on remand after being denied bail than at any point since the late 1970s, when those records began.

This is happening under federal bail laws that are about to become stricter. Last fall, the federal government introduced Bill C-14 to make it more difficult for people accused of serious crimes to get bail. People denied bail must remain in custody. They have been charged with crimes but have not yet had trials and are presumed innocent.

In Ontario, 86 per cent of people in provincial jails are on remand, having been denied bail. Jails in the province are over capacity. The Canadian Press this month reported Ontario plans to spend $4-billion to expand jails in the next six years, enabling it to imprison more people.

By Liam Casey, The Canadian Press Posted April 15, 2026 6:02 am. Last Updated April 15, 2026 6:03 am. Ontario Premier Doug Ford defended his government’s plan to build many more jails, saying the billions in cost will be worth it. Ontario’s jails are well over capacity, and the overcrowding has been worsening for years under Ford’s tenure as premier. The province plans to add upward of 6,000 new jail beds by 2050, government documents obtained by The Canadian Press show. “We aren’t building Four Seasons hotels for these people, they’re going to jail, and again, I don’t care if you stack them 10 high, these are criminals that broke the law and they’re going to be held accountable,” Ford said. About 80 per cent of inmates in provincial jails are awaiting trial and presumptively innocent. The provincial institutions hold people who are accused of a crime but not on bail, as well as those serving sentences of two years less a day. Inmates with longer sentences are housed in the federal prison system. Jails are expensive. A new one with 375 beds under construction in Thunder Bay, Ont., comes with a price tag of $1.2 billion. The documents also say the 1,140 jail beds the province is currently building will cost about $4 billion. “Those billions of dollars is well invested to make sure our communities are safe,” Ford said Tuesday. “And I’ve always said my job is to protect communities, protect the people, protect their jobs, and that’s exactly what we’re doing.” Ford said the plan is to continually build more jails in order to add capacity to the system. “We want to send a message to the judges: don’t hold back, send them to jail, and we’re going to take care of them,” he said. The transition binder made last year for Solicitor General Michael Kerzner shows the province’s three-phased plan to add thousands of jail beds to deal with a wildly overcrowded jail system. The internal documents say there are about 2,000 more inmates in jails than there is capacity, which stands at about 8,500 beds provincewide. The ministry said the capacity problems are “complex,” but several factors are contributing to the rise, including a backlog in the court system to deal with those on remand in jail awaiting trial, inmates remaining in custody longer, bail reform and population growth. University of Ottawa researchers obtained the binder through a recent freedom-of-information request and shared the documents with The Canadian Press. “The province’s plan should be seen for what it is — a radical, multibillion-dollar boondoggle that’ll line the pockets of Premier Ford’s friends in construction and the prison-industrial complex while depriving our communities of supports that actually make us safer,” said Justin Piché, a criminology professor at the University of Ottawa who researches provincial jails and federal prisons. Opposition party leaders said building more jails is not the practical or economical solution needed to ease overcrowding. “The government has completely failed to address overcrowding in jails because of their underinvestment in our court system, and as a result, a number of hardened criminals are getting out because of it,” said Green Party Leader Mike Schreiner. Overcrowded jails, combined with correctional officer shortages, trigger lockdowns. Courts have long given those convicted of crimes more credit for lockdown days than when jails are running normally, for reasons of undue hardship. This is taken into account by judges during sentencing, which often leads to reduced sentences. “Building more jails and putting people in jails will cost the government and taxpayers more money than if they were to build supportive housing and treatment centres to help people,” said Liberal justice critic Lucille Collard. NDP Leader Marit Stiles said Ford is focusing on the wrong part of the justice system to fix. “Our jails right now are deeply overcrowded, and that’s not safe for inmates or for correctional officers,” she said. “I just question why this government never seems to look at any of the upstream solutions around community safety.” She said the province needs to spend more money and resources to deal with the backlog in courts, which in turn would help ease crowding in jails. Two years ago, The Canadian Press obtained government data that showed the province’s jails were at 113 per cent capacity in 2023, with the majority of the province’s institutions filled beyond capacity.

As Doug Ford targets courts over bail, Zameer case, Ontario chief justice warns of attacks that ‘undermine the legitimacy of the judiciary’

By Jacques Gallant of The Star

Ontario’s top judge is warning that attacks on the justice system risk eroding the rule of law and ultimately causing society to fall into disorder, at a time when the courts are a frequent target of criticism from police and politicians. 

“Leaders in all sectors of society — government, law enforcement, media, and civic institutions — share a responsibility to uphold respect for the judicial process, even when they disagree with particular outcomes,” Chief Justice Michael Tulloch said in a speech delivered last week at the Truscott Lecture in Justice at the University of Guelph.

The erosion of the rule of law rarely happens suddenly, the chief justice said.

“It happens gradually — through repeated questioning of institutional legitimacy, through the normalization of distrust, and through the suggestion that legal outcomes are determined by politics rather than by law.”

Premier Doug Ford, who has long taken the view that jurists are releasing too many people on bail, recently called for those hearings to be live-streamed. “Everyone is held accountable, including our judges,” Ford said in March.

He also echoed the calls from the Toronto Police Association that the judge who presided over the trial of Umar Zameer should apologize for concluding, based on the evidence before her, that three officers had colluded and lied in their testimony. An OPP report found otherwise last month, though it has been widely criticized as a whitewash. 

“Maybe the judge should apologize for accusing them of everything under the sun,” Ford said.The Ontario government has also said it wants to have a role in the selection of federally-appointed judges to higher courts, while Ford attracted much criticism in 2024 when two of his ex-staffers were placed on the selection committee for provincial court judges, and the premier then declared he wanted to appoint “like-minded judges” who would hand down longer sentences. Multiple legal organizations expressed concern that the independence of the judiciary was under attack. 

Tulloch’s remarks represent a rare public rebuke by the judicial branch, although he doesn’t refer to specific incidents. He said that judicial independence “is not a privilege granted to judges for their own benefit,” but rather a constitutional protection for the public.

“It exists so that every person who appears before a court can be confident that their case will be decided according to the law and the evidence — not according to political pressure, institutional interests, or public sentiment,” he said.

“When public discourse suggests that judges are acting out of political motives rather than applying the law, or when institutions imply that courts are obstacles to justice rather than guardians of it, or when commentators imply that fair processes and adversarial testing conceal guilt instead of uncovering truth, the consequences can extend far beyond a single case,” Tulloch said.

An accused person has an absolute right to remain silent. This is a foundational right enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everyone has this right. In this case this Superior Court Judge decided that because an accused person denied one specific allegation, he must have admitted the rest of the allegations. Our Court of Appeal had to set the Judge straight.

“[4] We conclude that the trial judge erred by treating the appellant’s silence in his police statement as a “tacit admission” of guilt to the offences that he did not explicitly deny. The trial judge’s error was foundational because it materially affected her assessment of the appellant’s testimony, leading her to reject it, and of the complainant’s testimony, by bolstering it. Moreover, her finding of the appellant’s “tacit admission” of guilt served as one of the principal bases for her finding of the appellant’s guilt on the charges. We set aside the convictions and order a new trial. It is unnecessary to consider the sentence appeal.

[14] An accused’s right to silence in the face of police questioning is fundamental under the common law and has received “Charter benediction” under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: R. v. Turcotte, 2005 SCC 50, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 519, at paras. 41-42. The choice to remain completely silent, or to impart some but not all information, can never be used as evidence of guilt: Turcotte, at paras. 44-46, 52.

[20] It is clear from her reasons reproduced above that the trial judge accepted the trial Crown’s submission that, in denying one allegation, the appellant’s silence regarding the other allegations and the text amounted to admissions. The inference suggested by the Crown amounted to an impermissible inference of guilt from silence. That is especially so because the appellant asserted his right to silence more than once during the interview. The trial judge relied on these “tacit admissions” as foundational support for her findings of guilt against the appellant with respect to the charges for which he was convicted.

[22] As such, the trial judge erred by using the appellant’s silence to infer guilt. A new trial is required.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2026/2026onca116/2026onca116.html