Aaron Del Rizzo

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired care and control and 'over 80'.

He argued the trial judge's reasons for the impaired conviction were legally insufficient and that his s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel of choice was breached.

The Superior Court of Justice found the trial judge's reasons were insufficient because they failed to address exculpatory evidence and an alternative innocent inference.

The Court also found a s. 10(b) breach because police failed to inform the appellant he could wait a reasonable time for his counsel of choice, failed to facilitate contact, and failed to hold off on investigative steps.

The breath evidence was excluded under s. 24(2).

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's refusal to order a Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) assessment and the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit for an offender convicted of possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace.

The offender, a homeless man with schizophrenia, was involved in an altercation with a taxi driver and a homeless couple.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's discretionary decision to refuse the assessment based on the evidence, including video surveillance.

The court also upheld the trial judge's allocation of pre-sentence custody credit across multiple charges, applying the principles from Barnett.

The appellant appealed her summary convictions and 30-day concurrent sentences for two counts of assault against her landlords.

She argued the trial judge erred by failing to consider defence evidence, interfering with her cross-examinations, refusing to admit a 9-1-1 call, admitting undated photos and video, refusing to let her call the investigating officer, failing to order an interpreter for the complainants, and relying on disputed sentencing reports.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in the trial judge's credibility assessments, evidentiary rulings, or trial management, and dismissed the appeal.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, applied for certiorari and mandamus to quash a trial judge's decision to defer hearing a constitutional challenge and stay of proceedings application until after the trial on the merits.

The accused argued that a police media release violated their Charter rights and sought a stay.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the trial judge committed no jurisdictional error in exercising his discretion to manage court resources and defer the constitutional issue, noting that an acquittal would render the constitutional issues moot for the purpose of the criminal trial.

The Crown sought certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the accused on two counts of indecent assault, and to compel the judge to proceed with the inquiry.

The preliminary inquiry judge had refused an adjournment requested by the Crown, which was necessary because the complainant was unwilling to testify remotely due to privacy concerns, and the judge erroneously believed he lacked jurisdiction to impose conditions or accommodate an in-person hearing.

The Superior Court found that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional errors by failing to recognize his inherent powers to safeguard proceedings, relying on irrelevant factors (Crown's non-use of s. 545(1) of the Criminal Code), and misapplying the Darville adjournment test by introducing speculative future conditions.

The application was granted, the discharge order quashed, and the preliminary inquiry judge was directed to proceed.

During a jury trial for first degree murder, the Crown sought to introduce recognition evidence from five witnesses to identify the accused in surveillance videos.

The witnesses, including a police officer and four security guards, had prior interactions with the accused in the community.

The court applied the test for non-expert opinion evidence of identity, finding that each witness had a sufficient prior acquaintance with the accused and was in a better position than the jury to identify him.

The court rejected arguments that the evidence was overly prejudicial or tainted by the witnesses' knowledge of the investigation.

The Crown's application to adduce the recognition evidence was granted.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to admit a Resident Information Form for an apartment unit as a business record under s. 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The accused objected, arguing the form was not created in the ordinary course of business, contained double hearsay, and lacked threshold reliability.

The court dismissed the objections, finding the form was routinely collected and relied upon by property management, satisfying the statutory requirements for admissibility.

The form was admitted into evidence.

The applicant brought a pre-trial motion alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

He challenged the validity of the telewarrant, the reasonable and probable grounds in the Information to Obtain, and the unannounced dynamic entry by police.

The court dismissed the s. 8 claims, finding the warrant valid and the entry justified by safety concerns.

The Crown conceded a s. 9 breach due to a 27-hour delay in bringing the applicant before a justice of the peace.

However, the court declined to order a stay of proceedings, finding that a reduction in sentence upon conviction would be an adequate alternative remedy.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown brought an application to admit expert evidence regarding street gangs, specifically the rivalry between 'C3' and the 'Scarlettwood Crips'.

The Crown sought to qualify a police detective as an expert to provide context and establish motive for the seemingly random shooting of an unarmed man.

The defence opposed the application, arguing the evidence was highly prejudicial and the officer was not properly qualified.

The court allowed the application, finding the evidence was logically relevant to motive, necessary to assist the jury in understanding the context of the shooting, and that the officer was qualified.

The court ruled that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, subject to specific exclusions of certain highly prejudicial videos and appropriate jury instructions.

A young person was charged with second degree murder in connection with the death of S.K., who died from a single stab wound to the chest during a marijuana trafficking transaction that went wrong.

The accused admitted holding the knife that caused the fatal injury but claimed he was acting in self-defence and that the stabbing was accidental.

The Crown alleged intentional stabbing with either intent to kill or intent to cause bodily harm known to be likely to cause death.

The court found the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of unlawful act manslaughter, finding that while self-defence was not established, the accused did not have the specific intent required for murder.

The accused was found guilty of kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom and conspiracy to commit kidnapping.

The victim was violently abducted, confined for a week, and tortured by co-conspirators.

The accused was arrested while attempting to collect the $500,000 ransom.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay the unlawful confinement charge.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court determined a fit sentence was 7 years imprisonment.

After applying 1.5:1 credit for pre-sentence custody and additional credit for harsh lockdown conditions, the accused was sentenced to 2 years and 2.5 months in the penitentiary.

The accused, charged with kidnapping and related offences, brought a pre-trial Charter application to exclude evidence obtained from his seized cell phone.

The police conducted an initial cursory search of the phone upon his arrest to locate the kidnapped victim, followed by a comprehensive warrantless search of the downloaded data 12 days later.

The court held that the initial search was justified by exigent circumstances and did not violate s. 8 of the Charter.

However, the subsequent comprehensive search violated s. 8 because exigent circumstances no longer existed and it was not a valid search incident to arrest.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the police acted with reckless disregard for the accused's privacy rights and abused the search warrant process by seeking a second warrant on the eve of trial.

The accused was charged with kidnapping, unlawful confinement, extortion, assault causing bodily harm, and conspiracy after a complainant was abducted, tortured, and held for ransom.

The accused was arrested while attempting to collect the ransom money, and text messages on his phone linked him to the ongoing kidnapping enterprise.

The court found the accused guilty of unlawful confinement, kidnapping, and conspiracy, holding that he intentionally joined the continuing kidnapping offence and the existing conspiracy.

The accused was acquitted of extortion and assault causing bodily harm, as the extortion was completed before his involvement and there was no evidence he participated in the torture.

Zaheer Ahmad, charged with criminal harassment, applied for a review of his detention order, arguing that his pre-trial custody of 330 days constituted a material change in circumstances as it would likely exceed any potential sentence.

The applicant had a history of non-compliance with court orders and peace bonds, but had not contacted the complainant while detained.

The court found that the length of pre-trial detention did constitute a material change.

It further determined that the Crown had not met its onus to justify continued detention on secondary or tertiary grounds, despite the strength of the prosecution's case and the concerning circumstances of the alleged offence.

The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the right to reasonable bail, concluding that further detention would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The detention order was vacated, and Mr. Ahmad was released on a recognizance with conditions, including reporting to the Toronto Bail Program, residing at an approved address, attending counselling and medical treatment, and having no contact with the complainant.

The applicant was charged with possession of forged credit cards and child pornography after the CBSA intercepted a package of blank payment cards addressed to him.

After a Justice of the Peace refused to issue a search warrant due to insufficient grounds, police conducted a controlled delivery and arrested the applicant in his home without a warrant.

The police subsequently obtained a search warrant based partly on evidence found during the unlawful arrest and misleading information.

The applicant brought a Charter motion to exclude the evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found severe violations of the applicant's s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights, noting the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest and relied on a mere suspicion.

The evidence, including the child pornography found on the applicant's computer, was excluded under s. 24(2).

The accused was charged with serious offences including kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, extortion, conspiracy, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of property obtained by crime, and drug possession.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release on house arrest with his mother as primary surety, supported by his uncle and girlfriend.

The court found the Crown met its onus on both grounds and ordered detention.

The court found the accused played a mid-level role in a planned, prolonged kidnapping and torture scheme, and that the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge and control over the accused despite their good intentions.

Following convictions for attempted murder and related firearm and violence offences arising from a brief but violent incident, the court imposed a global penitentiary sentence.

The offender abducted and confined the complainant at gunpoint in retaliation for a dispute with her partner and attempted to shoot her, but the firearm malfunctioned.

The court reviewed appellate jurisprudence on sentencing ranges for attempted murder and assessed aggravating and mitigating circumstances, including the offender’s criminal record, the absence of physical injury, and the psychological impact on the victim.

Applying the totality principle and granting enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, the court determined that a 10‑year global sentence was appropriate before credit.

After credit of 35 months for pre‑sentence custody, the effective sentence imposed was 85 months' imprisonment.

The offender was convicted by a jury of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm, possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and related offences.

He was subsequently found guilty of two counts of possessing a firearm contrary to prohibition orders.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender, was transporting the drugs and loaded firearm to a known drug dealer.

The court sentenced him to a total of nine years in prison, reduced to four years and ten months after granting enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody due to onerous remand conditions and the justice of the peace's failure to make a written notation under s. 515(9.1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with attempt abduction, sexual assault, sexual invitation, and assault with intent to resist arrest following an incident on a Toronto street where he abruptly stopped his vehicle in oncoming traffic and aggressively approached a 2½-year-old child while screaming.

The child's father physically intervened and restrained the accused until police arrived.

The court found the accused guilty of attempt abduction, simple assault (as an included offence to sexual assault), and assault with intent to resist arrest.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual invitation and found him guilty of possession of cocaine and oxycodone on his own admission.

The court concluded that although the accused intended to sexually assault the child, the mens rea and actus reus of sexual assault did not coincide temporally at the roadside, as the sexual assault was intended to occur at a later time after abduction.