Aaron Del Rizzo

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.

The applicant, charged with kidnapping and forcible confinement, brought an application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from arrest to the anticipated end of the trial was approximately 34.25 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the delay was justified by transitional exceptional circumstances, noting the complexity of the case, which involved multiple co-accused, a large police investigation, and voluminous disclosure.

The application was dismissed.

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.

Sentencing following convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement arising from a violent overnight attack in which the complainant was taken to the offender's apartment, prevented from leaving, and sexually assaulted.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives in violent sexual assault cases, while also considering the offender's family circumstances, employment history, and limited prior record.

Relying on appellate guidance concerning vulnerable complainants and the gravity of violent sexual offences, the court imposed a penitentiary sentence.

Ancillary DNA, weapons prohibition, and sex offender registration orders were also made.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court considered whether the Crown had proven sexual assault and unlawful confinement arising from an encounter in the accused's apartment after the complainant accepted a ride.

Applying the W(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's account that the sexual activity was consensual and tied to a proposed payment, finding that version self-serving, nonsensical, and inconsistent with the physical and circumstantial evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence that she was prevented from leaving, sexually assaulted, and remained confined until she managed to contact 911.

Convictions were entered on both counts.

The accused brought a blended voir dire application seeking to exclude statements made to police following arrest for sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

The defence argued the statements were involuntary and obtained in breach of the accused’s right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter due to significant language comprehension difficulties.

After reviewing the videotaped interview and transcript, the court found the accused did not understand the caution and never meaningfully confirmed comprehension of the right to counsel or the right to silence.

The court held that police failed to take adequate steps to ensure the accused understood the caution given his obvious linguistic limitations.

Both the brief utterances at arrest and the later recorded police statement were ruled involuntary and inadmissible.

In this impaired driving jury trial, the court determined whether the accused's bolus drinking theory had an air of reality sufficient to be left with the jury.

Both Crown and defence toxicologists agreed on the blood alcohol calculations and on the quantity and timing of alcohol that would have been required for the theory to operate.

Even taking the accused's and supporting witness's evidence at its highest, the factual record could not support the necessary recent consumption.

The court held that leaving bolus drinking with the jury would be confusing and unsupported by the evidence, and instructed the jury not to consider it if they accepted the toxicology evidence.

On a blended voir dire in a robbery prosecution, the court considered the admissibility of post-arrest utterances made while the accused was detained in a police cruiser.

The court held the utterances were voluntary under the confessions rule, finding no oppression, inducement, or improper questioning.

Although the police breached s. 10(b) of the Charter by delaying access to counsel for many hours without sufficient evidentiary justification, the court declined to exclude the utterances under s. 24(2).

Applying the Grant factors, the court found the breach was not flagrant, the impact on protected interests was reduced because the police did not elicit the statements through investigative questioning, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

On a pre-trial motion in a robbery prosecution, the Crown sought to tender police expert evidence interpreting a single slang word in text messages sent before the alleged offence.

The court held the proposed witness was properly qualified to give expert evidence on urban street language and coded words.

Applying the Mohan admissibility framework and the second-stage balancing described in Abbey and Boswell, the court found the opinion rested on very limited context and carried meagre probative value.

Because the probative value did not outweigh the potential prejudice, the proposed expert evidence was excluded.

The offender was sentenced after being convicted of multiple firearms and drug-related offences, including possession of a prohibited loaded handgun, possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

Police discovered the firearm, ammunition, marijuana, trafficking paraphernalia, and nearly $30,000 in cash during the execution of a search warrant at the offender’s residence.

The court weighed significant aggravating factors arising from the dangerous combination of firearms and drug trafficking against mitigating factors including the offender’s lengthy period without criminal involvement, stable employment, and prospects for rehabilitation.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while applying the principle that a first penitentiary sentence should be set at the lowest appropriate level, the court imposed a global custodial sentence.

Consecutive terms were imposed for the drug trafficking and proceeds offences.

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.