Adele Monaco

The 70-year-old offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder after stabbing a vulnerable victim 42 times in a spontaneous rage triggered by loud noise.

The Crown sought a 14-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found that the offender's severe and long-standing mental illnesses played a central role in the offence, shifting the paramount sentencing objectives from deterrence to treatment.

Considering the offender's age, medical conditions, and onerous presentence custody, the court imposed a life sentence with a 12-year period of parole ineligibility.

The offender was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm and possession of a firearm contrary to a prohibition order following a shootout in a café.

The court dismissed a Charter application alleging that correctional staff improperly disseminated the offender's disclosure to other inmates, finding insufficient evidence.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of 7 years imprisonment, but deducted 18 months to account for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions (Duncan credit).

After applying Summers credit for time served, the remaining sentence was 23 months.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm and possession of a loaded prohibited firearm.

Prior to sentencing, he brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings due to his treatment while in pre-trial custody at the Maplehurst Correctional Complex.

During an Institutional Crisis Intervention Team (ICIT) deployment, the accused was subjected to pepper spray, physical abuse, and degrading conditions, including being left in wet boxer shorts in a cold cell for days.

The Crown conceded breaches of ss. 7, 8, and 12 of the Charter.

The court found the state conduct to be egregious, retributive, and a profound affront to the integrity of the justice system.

Applying the Babos test, the court concluded that a sentence reduction was insufficient to dissociate the justice system from the misconduct and granted a stay of proceedings.

The offender pleaded guilty to multiple serious firearms and drug trafficking offences stemming from two separate incidents, the second of which occurred while he was on bail for the first.

The court found the offender was a commercial drug trafficker using firearms as tools of the trade, necessitating a sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

Applying the totality principle and accounting for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years imprisonment, less credit for time served.

During a jury trial for second-degree murder and firearms offences arising from a shootout at a restaurant, the court ruled on the admissibility of the criminal records and police occurrence reports of one of the co-accused, the deceased, and the other co-accused.

The court excluded the co-accused's criminal record, finding its prejudicial effect substantially outweighed its limited probative value regarding credibility and self-defence.

The court admitted the deceased's criminal record and related occurrence reports, as they were relevant to the accused's claim of self-defence and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

The court excluded double hearsay occurrence reports and unproven police synopses relating to the accused.

The defendants were charged with first-degree murder for allegedly assisting two unidentified shooters in killing the victim at a social club.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including cell phone records, GPS data, and surveillance video, to prove the defendants helped position the getaway vehicle and locate the victim.

The court found that while the defendants knowingly assisted in a plan targeting the victim, there was a reasonable doubt as to whether they knew the perpetrators intended to commit murder.

However, applying section 21(2) of the Criminal Code, the court concluded the defendants knew or ought to have known that a probable consequence of their common unlawful purpose was an inherently dangerous act.

Both defendants were found guilty of manslaughter as an included offence.

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.

Judge-alone first degree murder trial arising from an execution-style shooting captured on surveillance video.

The Crown relied on circumstantial identification evidence including post-offence vehicle tracking, cellphone location records, recognition evidence from a probation officer, and items seized under warrant from one accused's residence.

The court admitted the recognition evidence under the prior acquaintance/better position test, upheld the search warrant, and rejected defence photogrammetry evidence as unreliable despite admitting it.

The alternate suspect theory was also rejected.

Both accused were found guilty of first degree murder.

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 Crown brought an application for certiorari and mandamus to quash a preliminary inquiry judge's order discharging the respondents on charges of attempted murder following a gunfight outside a convenience store.

The preliminary inquiry judge had found insufficient evidence of intent to kill.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by impermissibly weighing circumstantial evidence, failing to prefer the inference most favourable to the Crown, and failing to consider the evidence as a whole.

The application was allowed, the discharge order was quashed, and mandamus was granted directing the committal of both respondents to stand trial for attempted murder.

The defendants were convicted of recklessly discharging a restricted firearm, and one defendant was additionally convicted of drug trafficking and other firearm offences.

The court determined that the five-year mandatory minimum penalty applied to the discharge offence.

After considering aggravating factors, mitigating factors including harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, and the principle of totality, the court sentenced Mr. Jama to five years (reduced to four years, three months, and three weeks after credit) and Mr. Farah to a total of six years and 10.5 months (reduced to two years less a day after credit, plus probation).

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 five defendants were charged with numerous offences including drug trafficking, firearms possession, discharging a firearm, and criminal organization offences arising from a lengthy police investigation known as Project Patton.

The Crown relied heavily on intercepted communications.

The court found several defendants guilty of various drug trafficking and firearms possession charges, as well as discharging a firearm in relation to a March 24, 2018 shooting.

However, the court acquitted the defendants of attempted murder, the April 30, 2018 shooting, and the criminal organization charges, finding insufficient evidence of structure to constitute a criminal organization and reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the shooter in the April incident.

The offender pleaded guilty to the second-degree murder of his mother and the first-degree murders of his grandmother, sister, and father.

He killed his family members to prevent them from discovering he had dropped out of college.

The court accepted a joint submission, sentencing the offender to life imprisonment on all counts with consecutive parole ineligibility periods resulting in a total of 40 years before he can apply for parole.

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.