Adele Monaco

The court sentenced Emmanuel Kitenge, who pled guilty to manslaughter and failing to stop for police, for his role as a getaway driver in a fatal shooting.

The decision reviews the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, the offender’s background, and the applicable sentencing principles.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, including Kitenge’s youth, lack of criminal record, difficult upbringing, and significant rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years less one day for manslaughter (with credit for pre-sentence custody), a concurrent nine-month sentence for failing to stop for police, probation, and ancillary orders.

Christopher Mitchell pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the shooting death of John Wheeler.

The sentencing was adjourned to allow for the preparation of records and a psychological report.

At the sentencing hearing, the Crown and defence jointly recommended a parole ineligibility period of 18 years.

The court reviewed the circumstances of the offence, the impact on the victim’s family, and the background and mental health of Mr. Mitchell.

The court accepted the joint submission, imposing a life sentence with 18 years of parole ineligibility, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

Kalu Solomon pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including a gunpoint kidnapping, aggravated assault with a shank on a fellow inmate, and assaults/threats against correctional officers.

The court considered aggravating factors such as his extensive criminal record and institutional misconducts, and mitigating factors including his guilty plea, rehabilitative efforts, strong family support, harsh conditions of custody, and experience of racial slurs.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 8.5 years, while the defence sought a time-served sentence of approximately 6.4 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years, crediting Solomon with 7 years for pre-sentence custody (including a year of Duncan credit for harsh conditions), resulting in an additional year to serve.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime s. 109 order and a DNA order, plus three years of probation.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter and discharging a firearm with intent.

The charges stemmed from a fatal shooting in a public parking lot.

The Crown sought a 15-year sentence, while the defence proposed 10 years before credit for pre-trial custody.

The court considered various aggravating factors, including the deliberate use of an illegal firearm, multiple shots, harm to multiple victims, flight from the scene, and the significant impact on the victim's family.

Mitigating factors included the defendant's relative youth, a single prior youth conviction, a history of domestic violence trauma, family support, and harsh pre-trial custody conditions.

The court also considered the provocation that reduced the charge from second-degree murder to manslaughter, noting its limited impact on moral culpability.

The judge determined an appropriate sentencing range for firearm-related manslaughter to be 12 to 15 years.

Applying principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the court imposed a total sentence of 11.5 years imprisonment, to be served concurrently with a 6-year sentence for the firearm charge.

After accounting for 5 years of pre-trial custody credit, the defendant was sentenced to a further 6.5 years imprisonment, along with a lifetime s. 109 order and a DNA order.

The Crown applied under s. 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) for access to S.S.'s youth records to assist in his adult sentencing for manslaughter and reckless discharge of a firearm.

S.S. had previously been found guilty of assault causing bodily harm as a young person.

The court granted the application, finding that the Crown had a valid and substantial interest in the records, disclosure was not prohibited, and access was necessary for the proper administration of justice, balancing S.S.'s privacy interests against the public interest in a fit sentence for a serious adult re-offence.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and attempted murder, the Crown sought to admit three hearsay statements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule after the witnesses failed to adopt them in court.

The court excluded a police statement due to a lack of necessity and suggestive questioning.

However, the court admitted a witness's preliminary inquiry testimony, finding the witness's claimed lack of memory amounted to a recantation, satisfying necessity and procedural reliability.

The court also admitted a surreptitiously recorded video of another witness describing the shooting, finding necessity met by the witness's feigned memory loss and threshold reliability established through procedural safeguards and corroborative evidence (gunshot residue in a Gucci bag).

A second video was excluded due to its prejudicial effect regarding the accused's bad character.

The accused, charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking for a criminal organization and obstruction of justice, applied for a bail review.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to a new release plan involving two sureties and an ankle monitor.

The court found that while the proposed sureties were sufficient to meet the secondary ground, the accused failed to meet his onus on the tertiary ground.

Given the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and the accused's alleged attempt to procure a fake surety to subvert the bail process, detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old victim.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to four years, while the defence argued for 12 months.

The court found the victim's age and vulnerability to be significant aggravating factors, but noted the offender's youth, community support, and remorse as mitigating factors.

The court sentenced the offender to two years less a day in custody, followed by two years of probation.

The court granted credit for pre-sentence custody on these charges but denied credit for time spent in custody on unrelated charges.

The accused, Dwight Deshawn John, was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving an 11-year-old complainant (JN).

The court considered the defence of 'mistake of age' for sexual interference and 'honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent' for sexual assault.

The court accepted the accused's subjective belief that JN was 18 years old and found that he took all reasonable steps to ascertain her age, leading to an acquittal on the sexual interference charge.

However, the court found that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain JN's consent for sexual activity, leading to a conviction for sexual assault.

The accused, F.D., applied for a bail review based on a material change in circumstances, including a new release plan, significant trial delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the general impact of the pandemic on the inmate population.

The court found the proposed release plan, involving strict house arrest, electronic monitoring, and supervision by the applicant's fiancée's parents, to be robust.

Considering the strength of the supervision plan and the public health risks posed by COVID-19 in detention centers, the court granted bail, concluding that release would not undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

BMD, detained since October 2018 on firearm and drug-related offences, sought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He proposed a strengthened release plan including house arrest, two sureties, and GPS electronic monitoring, and argued the COVID-19 pandemic favored his release.

The court found the pandemic irrelevant to the secondary ground but relevant to the tertiary ground.

The strengthened release plan, particularly electronic monitoring and responsible sureties, addressed public safety concerns under the secondary ground.

On the tertiary ground, despite serious charges, the robust release plan and the public health imperative to de-populate correctional facilities due to COVID-19 led the court to conclude that continued detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence.

BMD was ordered released on strict conditions.

The three accused were charged with firearms offences after police located a loaded restricted firearm in a vehicle they occupied.

The police were investigating reports of gunshots and detained the vehicle.

The court dismissed the Crown's application to admit a police officer's preliminary inquiry evidence due to insufficient proof of his medical inability to testify.

The court found the investigative detention and pat-down searches lawful, but held that the subsequent search of the vehicle violated section 8 of the Charter because the searching officer did not testify to his subjective grounds.

However, the court declined to exclude the firearm under section 24(2).

Ultimately, the passenger who hid the firearm was convicted of possession offences, the driver was convicted of occupying a vehicle with a firearm, and the other passenger was acquitted of all charges.

The accused was charged with robbery and unauthorized use of a stolen credit card arising from a home invasion.

Following a voir dire on the admissibility of a video-recorded statement, the court found the statement was involuntary and excluded it from evidence.

The court also found a breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights due to police denigration of defence counsel's advice.

The court applied the Grant test and determined that exclusion of the statement was necessary to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system.

A young person charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(2) of the Charter based on an alleged infringement of the right to a speedy trial under section 11(b).

The applicant argued that the total delay of 18 months and 7 days exceeded the presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that while the net delay fell slightly below the 18-month ceiling when defence delay was deducted, the case warranted a stay because: (1) a reduced presumptive ceiling of 12 months should apply to youth cases; (2) even applying the 18-month ceiling, the delay was unreasonable as a clear case falling below the ceiling; and (3) the defence demonstrated sustained efforts to expedite proceedings while the Crown and trial coordination system failed to provide timely disclosure and trial dates.

The court emphasized that young persons should be tried within a markedly shorter timeframe than adults.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder following a fatal stabbing, applied for bail.

The Crown conceded the primary ground but opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found the proposed release plan, involving three sureties, house arrest, and electronic monitoring, addressed secondary ground concerns.

On the tertiary ground, the court noted the Crown's case for first degree murder was non-existent and the case for second degree murder was mediocre, while the case for manslaughter was strong.

Given the applicant's youth, lack of criminal record, and the weakness of the murder charge, the court granted bail with a $300,000 pledge.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter alleging an infringement of the right to a speedy trial under s. 11(b).

The accused was charged with importing heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The information was sworn on September 9, 2016, and trial was scheduled for June 25-28, 2018, resulting in a total delay of 658 days (21 months and 20 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that after deducting defence delay of 105 days, the net delay was 555 days (18 months and 13 days), exceeding the ceiling by 13 days.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The charges arose from a traffic stop initiated for an expired validation sticker, during which police claimed to smell marijuana and subsequently searched the vehicle, discovering packaged drugs.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence based on alleged breaches of Charter rights (ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b)).

The court found that the police officers' testimony was unreliable due to significant discrepancies regarding timing and sequence of events, contradictions between the two officers' accounts, and inconsistencies with independent dispatch records.

The court determined that there were no objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest and search, and that the defendant's right to counsel was breached.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the defendant was acquitted.

The defendant brought a Charter section 8 application to exclude evidence seized during a search of his residence.

The search was conducted pursuant to a Criminal Code search warrant based on information from two confidential informants.

The defendant challenged the adequacy of the judicial summary prepared under the Garofoli step six procedure, arguing it was insufficient to permit meaningful challenge to the warrant's validity.

The defendant also challenged whether reasonable and probable grounds existed for the warrant's issuance.

The court found the judicial summary adequate to allow the defendant to mount both facial and sub-facial challenges, and concluded that reasonable and probable grounds existed based on the totality of circumstances, including information from two corroborating confidential sources with track records of reliability, some first-hand observations, and police corroboration through database checks and surveillance.

The application was dismissed and the evidence ruled admissible.

The accused was arrested for attempted murder and firearm offences following a shooting in downtown Toronto.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the accused's post-arrest statements, including an 80-minute video interview, arguing breaches of s. 10(b) of the Charter and lack of voluntariness.

The court found a serious breach of s. 10(b) due to an unjustified three-hour delay in facilitating access to duty counsel while gunshot residue tests were conducted.

The court also found the statements were involuntary due to police threats to lay additional charges, inducements, and the 18-year-old accused's learning disabilities and physical distress.

All post-arrest statements were excluded.

The applicant sought a bail review after a justice of the peace denied release on the secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

A new release plan with two sureties, strict house arrest, and $60,000 in pledged sureties was advanced as a material change in circumstances.

The reviewing judge accepted that the new plan constituted credible new evidence potentially addressing the secondary ground by mitigating the risk of re‑offending.

However, the court held that the new plan did not materially affect the tertiary ground analysis, which was driven by the gravity of the offences, the strength of the prosecution’s case, the presence of a loaded firearm alongside significant quantities of drugs, and the prospect of a lengthy custodial sentence.

Balancing these factors, the court concluded detention remained necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.